Flaws list (also feature request)

[Hisu]

Compiled mainly from EU3 and CK2:

1. You cannot attack your neighbouring countries without the official declaration of war.
Yes, It Is A Flaw: Genghis-Khan never declared war on China. He just ordered an attack, that's all. Same with Hitler in 1939. Also, it was none other that Niccolo Machiavelli who wrote extensive works on how to catch your enemy unprepared and why it is crucial for winning the war. He lived from 1469 till 1527, so you cannot say it's a modern warfare method.
Requested features:
- ability to attack without declarations of war, no matter the government
- staged mobilization method (a country-wide policy aimed to temporarily maximize war potential, which allows for a momentary - lasting about 5 years in 20th century, which makes approx. 70 years in 15th - upper hand in all military aspects: technology, manpower, supplies, military production speed; all at the cost of almost completely draining your country of all its resources.)

2. You can only defeat enemy armies, but never destroy them, unless they run into you.
Yes, It Is A Flaw: there is a tactic to surround and then at least destroy the opposing army as a fighting force, if not exterminate the enemy completely. In military, it's called making a pocket or cauldron. This tactic is based on outmaneuvering the opposing force and then cutting it off supply lines AND fallback routes.
In EU/CK games, you cannot order your generals a battle of annihilation. In MoTE, you can manipulate your army's composition, but it still can never result in a cauldron.
Requested features:
- ability to order a battle of annihilation
- tactical-level cauldrons
- "no surrender, no retreat" policy

3. You cannot make an ultimatum, the war is measured purely by warscore.
YIIAF: numerous wars were won an annexations made this way - you send a message to the defeated enemy ruler, saying he will either surrender unconditionally, or his entire family will be exterminated. Sometimes they say yes and their countries are annexed no matter the cost of provinces, sometimes they say no and their whole family is decimated, rendering the country an unorganized array of states, ripe for taking.
Requested features:
- ultimatums
- executions
- policy of terror

4. No razing.
YIIAF: in Napoleonic wars, Kutuzov razed Moscow to wear down Napoleon's army. Ages before that, Attila razed Rome so his army wouldn't be delayed in conquest if, by any chance, Romans would recapture their capital.
Requested feature:
- razing and rebuilding of cities

5. PTI, commonly known as Permanent Terra Incognita.
YIIAF: actually, I don't know even why should I prove it's a flaw in game mechanics. The whole game is about MAKING history, not following it. So the Saharan Desert wasn't explored in 1500ths, what of it? If John Fremont explored Nevada, why can't an all-powerful Algerian ruler order an expedition to Sahara? PTI simply defies both the common sense and the point of the game series.
Requested features:
- absence of PTI

*

...list is to be continued.

Discuss?

 

[Vishaing]

1 Is handled by Hordes being always at war with their non-Horde Neighbors. Whether you like it or not, most 'civilized' countries did not just attack without a formal declaration of war. Hordes are of course not 'Civilized', and I would say a case for Hitler being a Barbarian could also be made but I've met several very nice Barbarians. Joking Aside, I think the system could use some exploration, but just letting anyone attack anyone at any time without a declaration of war is going to far and completely invalidates the CB System.

2 Is already fixed, Defeated Armies may not be destroyed, but they'll be effectively out of commission for a long time after a crushing defeat, which I like.

3 Would be more useful if Families existed in the game and were at all important to the Player in regards to Gameplay. Although I also desire to be able to send Ultimatums, but I'm more interested in Pre-War Ultimatums with war being the threat.

4 Scorched Earth has been in since EUIII Napoleon's Ambition I believe? It just never made much sense to use it because it sucked. I think they've changed this to be more significant, especially since one of Russia's Fancy Pants NIs deals with it.

5 There will be mods removing PTA within seconds of the game hitting the shelves, I guarantee it. I personally disagree with them, as I feel there should be places you just can't explore feasibly without the Proper Technology. Unfortunately EUIII lacked any way to truly scale the 'lethality' of a province to your explorers, with the exception of Natives, which weren't much of a threat anyways. As suhc, you can't make it so the Sahara can be explored with difficulty compared to say Manhattan Island. If you can explore both Provinces, it's just as easy to explore one as the other. Given that, I would rather have The Sahara completely unexplorable rather than make it a happy field of flowers and butterflies for 50K+ Soldiers to march through without issue.

 

[Pitt The Elder]

Requested features:
- ability to attack without declarations of war, no matter the government

Which would change what exactly?

- staged mobilization method (a country-wide policy aimed to temporarily maximize war potential, which allows for a momentary - lasting about 5 years in 20th century, which makes approx. 70 years in 15th - upper hand in all military aspects: technology, manpower, supplies, military production speed; all at the cost of almost completely draining your country of all its resources.)

20th century phenomenon is totes the same as a 15th Century one, just gotta scale by some arbitrary number amirite? When exactly did this happen during the EUIV timeline?

2. You can only defeat enemy armies, but never destroy them, unless they run into you.
Yes, It Is A Flaw: there is a tactic to surround and then at least destroy the opposing army as a fighting force, if not exterminate the enemy completely. In military, it's called making a pocket or cauldron. This tactic is based on outmaneuvering the opposing force and then cutting it off supply lines AND fallback routes.

Again, when did this happen during the EUIV timeline?

3. You cannot make an ultimatum, the war is measured purely by warscore.
YIIAF: numerous wars were won an annexations made this way - you send a message to the defeated enemy ruler, saying he will either surrender unconditionally, or his entire family will be exterminated. Sometimes they say yes and their countries are annexed no matter the cost of provinces, sometimes they say no and their whole family is decimated, rendering the country an unorganized array of states, ripe for taking.
Requested features:
- ultimatums
- executions
- policy of terror

ITT: I contract Broken Record Syndrome. When did this happen during the EUIV timeline? This one is perhaps the most plausible one of the bunch, but that would have it occurring once, rather than being a thing that happened often enough to deserve inclusion as a feature. And Vishaing is absolutely correct, EU isn't about dynasties.

YIIAF: in Napoleonic wars, Kutuzov razed Moscow to wear down Napoleon's army. Ages before that, Attila razed Rome so his army wouldn't be delayed in conquest if, by any chance, Romans would recapture their capital.
Requested feature:
- razing and rebuilding of cities

First, Napoleon is outside the timeline, as is Atilla. Second, it's not particularly clear that the razing of Moscow was intentional or effective. Nor was that in any way something that Attila did, mostly because he never actually captured Rome.

5. PIA, commonly known as Permanent Terra Incognita.
YIIAF: actually, I don't know even why should I prove it's a flaw in game mechanics. The whole game is about MAKING history, not following it. So the Saharan Desert wasn't explored in 1500ths, what of it? If John Fremont explored Nevada, why can't an all-powerful Algerian ruler order an expedition to Sahara? PIA simply defies both the common sense and the point of the game series.
Requested features:
- absence of PIA

PIA didn't exist by the end of EU3.

Discuss?

I'm shitfaced drunk and I still know these don't make any damned sense.

 

[Hisu]

1 Is handled by Hordes being always at war with their non-Horde Neighbors. Whether you like it or not, most 'civilized' countries did not just attack without a formal declaration of war. Hordes are of course not 'Civilized', and I would say a case for Hitler being a Barbarian could also be made but I've met several very nice Barbarians. Joking Aside, I think the system could use some exploration, but just letting anyone attack anyone at any time without a declaration of war is going to far and completely invalidates the CB System.

Another example from recent history, then.
December 8, 1945 - Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, USA, Hawaii. There was no formal declaration of war from Japan. USA declared war on Japan following this surprise attack.
As for CB system, it must be solely the mediator, not the moderator. Non-CB attacks may (and most likely will) incrue a lot of additional infamy, but still, the decision on whether to do it or not should be made by player, not the game itself.

2 Is already fixed, Defeated Armies may not be destroyed, but they'll be effectively out of commission for a long time after a crushing defeat, which I like.

Defeated is not enough; history is full of examples of armies being eliminated, with single survivors barely making it to the main force. In-game, it might be represented by adding a portion of annihilated army's numbers to the manpower pool.

3 Would be more useful if Families existed in the game and were at all important to the Player in regards to Gameplay. Although I also desire to be able to send Ultimatums, but I'm more interested in Pre-War Ultimatums with war being the threat.

Yes, it was more a reference to CK2. Also, I long for diplomatic threats; like, eliminate a line of rulers and then send a note to the surviving one about how he should rule to avoid that fate.

4 Scorched Earth has been in since EUIII Napoleon's Ambition I believe? It just never made much sense to use it because it sucked. I think they've changed this to be more significant, especially since one of Russia's Fancy Pants NIs deals with it.

It's still not enough.

5 There will be mods removing PTA within seconds of the game hitting the shelves, I guarantee it. I personally disagree with them, as I feel there should be places you just can't explore feasibly without the Proper Technology.

There should be no need for proper technology. If anything can traverse the ground, then a country can explore the territory. There were no exceptions to this in history, aside from that it was a costly gamble, and thus very rarely done. Tech should lower the number of casualties or other kinds of costs, but nothing more.

 

[Hisu]

Which would change what exactly?
20th century phenomenon is totes the same as a 15th Century one, just gotta scale by some arbitrary number amirite?

Technological progress isn't steady. It was accelerating non-stop since the end of dark ages. I must admit I don't remember the exact modifier value, but five years of progress in 20th century (namely 1940-19451935-1940: from steam to diesel, from armored cars to full-blown heavy tanks, from short-range recon planes to strategic bombers, etc etc etc) equal about 70 in 15th (for example, to develop plate armour from coat of plates, it took about a whole century; I can provide more examples if you wish).

When exactly did this happen during the EUIV timeline?
Again, when did this happen during the EUIV timeline?
When did this happen during the EUIV timeline?
First, Napoleon is outside the timeline, as is Atilla.

My first point is: It has happened before timeline X. It happened after timeline X. No reason it can't happen in the timeline X. EU is not about following history, it's about making it. So yeah, even if it didn't happen in the etalon timeline (which I'm doubtful of), there is no reason for it not to happen in yours.
My second point is: "It can be done in the real world" is all the reason you may ever need to implement something in any game that represents reality. You can threaten the government of the conquered country to either die or surrender unconditionally, therefore you should be able to do it. You can attack without warning, therefore you should be able to do it. Of course, the consequences are yours to handle, too, so you may choose to refrain from one action or the other, but it must be your choice entirely.

 

[Evie HJ]

Your proposal of ultimatum (ie total annexation) would result in both encouraging total war (something that is generally ahistorical to the period, and that was a major complaint of players last game around, the need to occupy every province to achieve victory), and ridiculously fast expansion (via being able to gobble up enormous countries so long as you can defeat their armies in battle).

Neither of which makes for a good game, therefore, the proposal, which is not of much historical value (it may have happened; even if it didn't, it was exceedingly rare and not an important feature of the era). Adding it would only damage the game, without gaining much in return.

 

[Chamboozer]

I disagree with everything, except maybe #3.

1. You cannot attack your neighbouring countries without the official declaration of war.

This is pointless as far as gameplay is concerned. A state of war either does or does not exist between two countries. It'd be nice for Paradox to simulate conflicts that were not full-scale wars (e.g. raiding) but that isn't what you seem to be asking for. Also, mobilization in the sense you're using it is anachronistic for this time period.

2. You can only defeat enemy armies, but never destroy them, unless they run into you.

This already exists, it's called defeating the enemy in battle. Oftentimes decisive victories in the game destroys or nearly destroys the opposing force entirely.

3. You cannot make an ultimatum, the war is measured purely by warscore.

This works fairly well in CK, simulating the forced peace treaties that came with opposing monarchs being captured. While it would be a worthwhile addition to EUIV (see Francis I of France) it's not terribly important.

4. No razing.

I don't think there's much need to expand on the current scorched earth system, which does exist. Nor should players have to micromanage reconstruction of the damaged province.

5. PIA, commonly known as Permanent Terra Incognita.

It doesn't make sense for an Algerian ruler to order an expedition into the Sahara, and the few instances where things like that happened are already possible in the game (Moroccan invasion of West Africa, for instance). Most PTI/Wasteland provinces are fine as they are. Others are debatable, such as the American Midwest, but to me they seem reasonable.

Technological progress isn't steady. It was accelerating non-stop since the end of dark ages. I must admit I don't remember the exact modifier value, but five years of progress in 20th century (namely 1940-19451935-1940: from steam to diesel, from armored cars to full-blown heavy tanks, from short-range recon planes to strategic bombers, etc etc etc) equal about 70 in 15th (for example, to develop plate armour from coat of plates, it took about a whole century; I can provide more examples if you wish).

The world cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation in that way. Progress happens because of worldly events, not because X^Y = Tech rate.

 

[Evie HJ]

This works fairly well in CK, simulating the forced peace treaties that came with opposing monarchs being captured. While it would be a worthwhile addition to EUIV (see Francis I of France) it's not terribly important.

That's not what he's asking for, though. He's asking for, essentially, the ability to annex regardless of size.

 

[Hisu]

Your proposal of ultimatum (ie total annexation) would result in both encouraging total war (something that is generally ahistorical to the period,

Again, I can only say that EU is about making history, not following or repeating it.

and that was a major complaint of players last game around, the need to occupy every province to achieve victory), and ridiculously fast expansion (via being able to gobble up enormous countries so long as you can defeat their armies in battle).

How about honorable surrender costing less than 100% warscore? As in available after the enemy loses a certain score of provinces?

Adding it would only damage the game, without gaining much in return.

So you should have an option of not using ultimatums. I don't see a problem with that.

*

This is pointless as far as gameplay is concerned. A state of war either does or does not exist between two countries. It'd be nice for Paradox to simulate conflicts that were not full-scale wars (e.g. raiding) but that isn't what you seem to be asking for. Also, mobilization in the sense you're using it is anachronistic for this time period.

It was done before the EU timeline (ref. Roman conquest of Britain), and it was done after the EU timeline (WW2). Is there a reason it absolutely cannot happen during the EU timeline? I'm not sure it didn't, BTW, but it's simply not the case.

This already exists, it's called defeating the enemy in battle. Oftentimes decisive victories in the game destroys or nearly destroys the opposing force entirely.

Destroyed army = army not existing as a unit. No exceptions. As far as I see in EU3 and CK2, you can only destroy an army if you force it into an overwhelmingly stronger garrison. It's essentially a cauldron, but only in the strategic sense. I want tactical cauldrons. It was done before and it was done after, and I'm pretty damn sure it was done during EU3 timeline in our history, so I see no reason not to implement battles of annihilation.

This works fairly well in CK, simulating the forced peace treaties that came with opposing monarchs being captured. While it would be a worthwhile addition to EUIV (see Francis I of France) it's not terribly important.

I talk about not just applying imaginary diplomatic pressure, but actual ultimatums. For example, my country wins a war against united Britain by capturing all its provinces and utterly annihilating all its forces. I then issue an ultimatum, stating that the ruling body of said Britain will be disbanded, its leadership honourably discharged, and its land become a part of my country. Should Britain decline it, its leadership is executed and then it breaks up into England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland with my country annexing the majority domain - in case of classic history, that being England. tl;dr, I'm speaking of "my country or die as a country" kind of ultimatums.
Yes, a small country with no tradition of macromanagement simply won't survive sudden expansion, the newborn empire will shatter. Yet, still, I prefer to deal with the consequences if I bite off more than I can chew, rather than be flatly denied the decision.

I don't think there's much need to expand on the current scorched earth system, which does exist. Nor should players have to micromanage reconstruction of the damaged province.

Yes, it's a minor point, but still, the existing scorched earth doesn't affect the invading armies while it should. They should depend on supplies (or foraging) more. Much more.

It doesn't make sense for an Algerian ruler to order an expedition into the Sahara

Yes, it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't mean it can't make sense.

Most PTI/Wasteland provinces are fine as they are. Others are debatable, such as the American Midwest, but to me they seem reasonable.

Feature is preferable over no feature, unless there is an ironclad reason for contrary.

The world cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation in that way. Progress happens because of worldly events, not because X^Y = Tech rate.

It can, though such a crude equation will produce similarily crude results. But, as we don't need precision here, it works.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

I agree with the opposition on most counts. Most of the argument is using things form centuries out of the EU4 timeframe. And while battles of annihilation were always sought after by many generals difficulties in battlefield communications and other factors made them rare and difficult things to pull off for most of human history. It took great generals typically to orchestrate them and only if the conditions were right (aka Hannibal).

That said i do disgree with what Cham has said (seems to be a habit forming).

"It doesn't make sense for an Algerian ruler to order an expedition into the Sahara, and the few instances where things like that happened are already possible in the game (Moroccan invasion of West Africa, for instance). Most PTI/Wasteland provinces are fine as they are. Others are debatable, such as the American Midwest, but to me they seem reasonable."

Bebers traded in the salt trade through the Sahara into Mali for its gold. This trade route did go through Algeria. So in that case it does make sense... That many berbers lived in Algeria and the Algerian ruler should already have an idea how to go through the Sahara at least with a caravan of at most a few hundred people. That said given the smallest military unit is like a 1000 men strong attempting to do so should warrant very very large attrition damage.

 

[Hisu]

I agree with the opposition on most counts. Most of the argument is using things form centuries out of the EU4 timeframe. And while battles of annihilation were always sought after by many generals difficulties in battlefield communications and other factors made them rare and difficult things to pull off for most of human history. It took great generals typically to orchestrate them and only if the conditions were right (aka Hannibal).

I have nothing against battles of annihilation being hard to pull off. I simply don't like being denied to try.

That said given the smallest military unit is like a 1000 men strong attempting to do so should warrant very very large attrition damage.

But, if the Algerian ruler was to consider it (for whatever reason; it doesn't matter here), I bet he could make at least a few traversable pathways where attrition isn't that much.

 

[Chamboozer]

It was done before the EU timeline (ref. Roman conquest of Britain), and it was done after the EU timeline (WW2). Is there a reason it absolutely cannot happen during the EU timeline? I'm not sure it didn't, BTW, but it's simply not the case.

You missed the point of what I said. Within the game, war either is or is not occuring. With the game structured in that way, it becomes meaningless to include an option to attack without declaring war. What did you have in mind for how it would work on a practical basis?

Destroyed army = army not existing as a unit. No exceptions. As far as I see in EU3 and CK2, you can only destroy an army if you force it into an overwhelmingly stronger garrison. It's essentially a cauldron, but only in the strategic sense. I want tactical cauldrons. I was done before and it was done after, and I'm pretty damn sure it was done during EU3 timeline in our history, so I see no reason not to implement battles of annihilation.

This does occur from time to time. I've had plenty of victories in EUIII which were extensive enough to wipe out the enemy army, even with them starting at full strength.

I talk about not just applying imaginary diplomatic pressure, but actual ultimatums. For example, my country wins a war against united Britain by capturing all its provinces and utterly annihilating all its forces. I then issue an ultimatum, stating that the ruling body of said Britain will be disbanded, its leadership honourably discharged, and its land become a part of my country. Should Britain decline it, its leadership is executed and then it breaks up into England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland with my country annexing the majority domain - in case of classic history, that being England. tl;dr, I'm speaking of "my country or die as a country" kind of ultimatums.

There're three things wrong with this:

1. It's an oversimplification. That isn't how the world worked, states in this time period were not so centralized that a conqueror could unilaterally enforce whatever demands he wanted on the defeated party. Opposition groups both foreign and domestic would have to be appeased, which the game can't simulate with anything approaching accuracy.
2. There's no historical precedent, for precisely the above reason.
3. It's bad for gameplay. It would give the player far too much power in his ability to expand. It's the very thing that EUIV intends to avoid.

Yes, it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't mean it can't make sense.

I wish I could make sense of this sentence.

In this game, exploring a province means you can colonize a province. Colonizing a province means it's come under the control of the state, and that it contains a garrison and a city that produces a tradeable good. For most of the Sahara, this is impossible for all practical purposes.

Feature is preferable over no feature, unless there is an ironclad reason for contrary.

I suppose Paradox should cram the game full of every feature they can imagine until everyone's run completely out of ideas, then? That's bad reasoning. The devs choose what to add and what to remove based on what will give players the best experience, and seeing Africa getting colonized en masse in the 17th Century is not a positive experience by any means.

It can, though such a crude equation will produce similarily crude results. But, as we don't need precision here, it works.

Yeah, whatever. Keep pretending you know history.

And Marcus, you're completely right about the salt trade, but the salt-producing regions are all in the part of the Sahara which in-game is not wasteland. I assume what Hisu is talking about is exploring and colonizing the parts of the Sahara which were in fact completely empty.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

I have nothing against battles of annihilation being hard to pull off. I simply don't like being denied to try.

But, if the Algerian ruler was to consider it (for whatever reason; it doesn't matter here), I bet he could make at least a few traversable pathways where attrition isn't that much.

Battle of Annihilation were rarer in most of the EU4 timeline due to the lack of mobility armies were facing due to the immobility of a key piece of their new equipment aka Artillery and the gradual decline of Calvary. Napeolon one of histories greatest generals tried many times to perform battles of annihilation falling short on many occasions. It actually gets progressively harder to perform battles of annihilation the further you get into EU4's time frame due to the increasing in army size and further reliance of cannons and the decline of the cavalry as the decisive arm of most armed forces

Isn't that much for what a entire army? No probably not and if he could it would be an extravagant waste of money. Its expensive to make good roads in the desert, the ground shifts the road cracks, the sandstorm hits up its covered. There are ways to make desert area's more fertile but they require irrigation and are very expensive. Arab oil rulers liked making oasis's in the desert as an expression on how wealthy they were, a "pathway" where attrition isn't that much would be like a series of those oasis'.

Far Far more sensible is to attempt to find a way to safely sail along the Moroccan coastline at least to transport any large numbers of troops.

 

[Hisu]

You missed the point of what I said. Within the game, war either is or is not occuring. With the game structured in that way, it becomes meaningless to include an option to attack without declaring war. What did you have in mind for how it would work on a practical basis?

Player A uses raid action, ordering the troops to assault player B's province. The raid succeeds or not, depending on how good are province's passive defenses are. Depending on the rate of success, the province may become occupied by player A, and its main city garrison defeated. Success also triggers war between players A and B automatically. Depending on the rate of failure, player A may lose an entire raiding force. In case of failure, player B gains "Border skirmishes" CB on player A.

This does occur from time to time. I've had plenty of victories in EUIII which were extensive enough to wipe out the enemy army, even with them starting at full strength.

Yes. Unfortunately, it's purely a matter of luck — unless I'm missing something about orchestrating such a victory. Then I'd be happy to know how it's done.

1. It's an oversimplification. That isn't how the world worked, states in this time period were not so centralized that a conqueror could unilaterally enforce whatever demands he wanted on the defeated party. Opposition groups both foreign and domestic would have to be appeased, which the game can't simulate with anything approaching accuracy.

Mostly, yes. Which doesn't mean it couldn't be done under any circumstances. Hence, why deny players do it?

2. There's no historical precedent, for precisely the above reason.

I don't know history good enough to say yes or no, but let's say you're right. Yet, there were other ultimatums, some of them being essentially "do or die" kind.

3. It's bad for gameplay. It would give the player far too much power in his ability to expand. It's the very thing that EUIV intends to avoid.

Don't use it then. It's not like I want it to be the only way to win.
In my opinion, single player games shouldn't be balanced more than the storyline absolutely requires. What, no storyline? Then no balance needed whatsoever. The reason for that is simple: everyone who will want advantages for themselves or AI, will make (or wait for others to make) them, so there's no reason not to let players legally do what they will do by modding the game anyways.

I wish I could make sense of this sentence.

"Wasn't" doesn't equal "couldn't be". Better?

In this game, exploring a province means you can colonize a province. Colonizing a province means it's come under the control of the state, and that it contains a garrison and a city that produces a tradeable good. For most of the Sahara, this is impossible for all practical purposes.

Why not make an option of making wastelands traversable? It was done in the human history, and not just once.

I suppose Paradox should cram the game full of every feature they can imagine until everyone's run completely out of ideas, then? That's bad reasoning.

Taking something to the extreme is always bad reasoning.

The devs choose what to add and what to remove based on what will give players the best experience, and seeing Africa getting colonized en masse in the 17th Century is not a positive experience by any means.

(Un)fortunately, positive experience is relative. Some like to see genuine white spots on the map, some see them as an challenge to fill the blanks. If there is an option to satisfy both sides, why choose only one?

And Marcus, you're right about the salt trade, but the salt-producing regions are all in the part of the Sahara which is not wasteland.

...which means you can just include a wasteland into the borders of non-wasteland province. As provinces may (and do) have different types of terrain, and necessary upgrades that can relate to making the wasteland traversable, I don't see why not do it.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

Yes. Unfortunately, it's purely a matter of luck — unless I'm missing something about orchestrating such a victory. Then I'd be happy to know how it's done.

Luck is sometimes more important than tactical skill, resources or technology on either side. With that said I want to watch some Irresponsible Captain Tylor episodes...

And how do you orchestrate anything tactically? you dont control the land combat yourself. Its not the Total War series after all..

 

[Chamboozer]

Player A uses raid action, ordering the troops to assault player B's province. The raid succeeds or not, depending on how good are province's passive defenses are. Depending on the rate of success, the province may become occupied by player A, and its main city garrison defeated. Success also triggers war between players A and B automatically. Depending on the rate of failure, player A may lose an entire raiding force. In case of failure, player B gains "Border skirmishes" CB on player A.

So Paradox should devise an entirely new complex mechanic, with all the opportunity costs that come with it, just for this?

Yes. Unfortunately, it's purely a matter of luck — unless I'm missing something about orchestrating such a victory. Then I'd be happy to know how it's done.

By having superior soldiers and a superior general which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't too far off from what it would require in history.

Mostly, yes. Which doesn't mean it couldn't be done under any circumstances. Hence, why deny players do it?

Because Paradox can't give you all the options in the world to allow you to do anything which would be physically possible. Especially in a situation like this, where the consequences could not be modelled with any degree of accuracy.

Don't use it then. It's not like I want it to be the only way to win.
In my opinion, single player games shouldn't be balanced more than the storyline absolutely requires. What, no storyline? Then no balance needed whatsoever. The reason for that is simple: everyone who will want advantages for themselves or AI, will make (or wait for others to make) them, so there's no reason not to let players legally do what they will do by modding the game anyways.

Well, there it is. a statement so mind-boggling I don't think I should even continue here.

 

[Hisu]

Battle of Annihilation were rarer in most of the EU4 timeline due to the lack of mobility armies were facing due to the immobility of a key piece of their new equipment aka Artillery and the gradual decline of Calvary. Napeolon one of histories greatest generals tried many times to perform battles of annihilation falling short on many occasions. It actually gets progressively harder to perform battles of annihilation the further you get into EU4's time frame due to the increasing in army size and further reliance of cannons and the decline of the cavalry as the decisive arm of most armed forces

Despite said reliance, cavalry was always a major threat to any army. Take Napoleonic wars, for example. Here's Napoleon's army, a bulk of infantry and heavy artillery; in the field, cavalry can't do anything about them, but armies don't always fight in the open. Cossack cavalry slowed down Napoleon's advance, disrupted his supply lines, and was always near, just out of reach, so it's one mistake and your army is almost instantly overrun by weak, but very fast and maneuverable mounted units. So I can't say we can dismiss cavalry as a fighting force. When an army is defeated and retreating, a major cavalry offensive can destroy it as a fighting force, 'cause cannons won't help much in this scenario.

Isn't that much for what a entire army? No probably not and if he could it would be an extravagant waste of money. Its expensive to make good roads in the desert, the ground shifts the road cracks, the sandstorm hits up its covered. There are ways to make desert area's more fertile but they require irrigation and are very expensive. Arab oil rulers liked making oasis's in the desert as an expression on how wealthy they were, a "pathway" where attrition isn't that much would be like a series of those oasis'.
Far Far more sensible is to attempt to find a way to safely sail along the Moroccan coastline at least to transport any large numbers of troops.

I see the point. Okay then, why not include it into some other nearby province, with proper terrain modification?

 

[Hisu]

So Paradox should devise an entirely new complex mechanic, with all the opportunity costs that come with it, just for this?

I didn't describe an entirely new complex mechanic. I'm not an expert on mods, but I guess this mechanic can even be modded in EU3, which automatically means you don't need anything new at all to make it work.

By having superior soldiers and a superior general which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't too far off from what it would require in history.

Been there, done that. A 6-star general against 2-star general, 4-point units against 2-point units, around 4 to 1 advantage in numbers, 80% morale against 30% morale. The latter army wasn't destroyed. The other battle, in pretty much the same circumstances, actually -did- result in destroying the army. I fail to see the reason why, aside from pure dumb luck.

Because Paradox can't give you all the options in the world to allow you to do anything which would be physically possible. Especially in a situation like this, where the consequences could not be modelled with any degree of accuracy.

I'm not saying they must. I'm only saying they shouldn't remove things that can be left available.

Well, there it is. a statement so mind-boggling I don't think I should even continue here.

As you wish.

 

[Hisu]

And how do you orchestrate anything tactically? you dont control the land combat yourself. Its not the Total War series after all..

I thought ensuring a 3:1 advantage in command with 2:1 advantage in arms, 4:1 advantage in numbers and 2.5:1 advantage in morale is enough.

 

[Ekyman]

Again, I can only say that EU is about making history, not following or repeating it.

But it's still a historical game; it doesn't have events forcing you to repeat history, but it is made of mechanics that are accurate to the time.

I'm not saying they must. I'm only saying they shouldn't remove things that can be left available.

As ultimatums have never been in EU, nothing has been removed.