Haven't played for a few patches; do troops still take 10% attrition/tick in deep sea?

[jamal bakr]

Hi guys, basically stopped playing around 1.29 or whenever they changed troop attrition in deep sea tiles to being -10% on entry, -10% on tick because it made playing naval nations incredibly tedious. Have they maintained this goofy rule they invented to balance their meme pirate republics, or have they patched it out yet? Weirdest thing in the history of the game was sending 10k troops from England to Massachusetts and only 2k survive the ride. Compared to sieging Karelia in the little ice age, where attrition is capped at 5% per month, over 4x less.

edit: I'm just asking if its been patched out, there has been a lot of notes since I last played.

 

[Cookiepie]

Hi guys, basically stopped playing around 1.29 or whenever they changed troop attrition in deep sea tiles to being -10% on entry, -10% on tick because it made playing naval nations incredibly tedious. Have they maintained this goofy rule they invented to balance their meme pirate republics, or have they patched it out yet? Weirdest thing in the history of the game was sending 10k troops from England to Massachusetts and only 2k survive the ride. Compared to sieging Karelia in the little ice age, where attrition is capped at 5% per month, over 4x less.

edit: I'm just asking if its been patched out, there has been a lot of notes since I last played.

First of all, you're not just asking if it's been patched out. Secondly, no it hasn't.

 

[jamal bakr]

thanks buddy. I'm guessing you still can't recruit mercs in colonial nations either?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

On arrival attrition is bad in the water for the same reason it was bad on land. Was very surprised to see that regression make its way back into EU 4, and unfortunately it's still a thing. Would be nice if pathing at least considered it.

 

[jamal bakr]

Honestly it has no real purpose other than nerf a few meme nations, and results in bizarre behaviors like if you want to send troops to Mexico, you first go down to africa and cross at the romanche gap. Still lose 20% of your men in a single month lmao.

I just think it's funny to think of soldiers at the siege of Leningrad saying "Well this might be rough, but I much rather take 4 years of this than a 6 month voyage to Manhattan! (80% fatality rate)".

 

[currylambchop]

Honestly it has no real purpose other than nerf a few meme nations, and results in bizarre behaviors like if you want to send troops to Mexico, you first go down to africa and cross at the romanche gap. Still lose 20% of your men in a single month lmao.

I just think it's funny to think of soldiers at the siege of Leningrad saying "Well this might be rough, but I much rather take 4 years of this than a 6 month voyage to Manhattan! (80% fatality rate)".

Shipping over soldiers with 16th century tech is not gonna be kind to them

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Shipping over soldiers with 16th century tech is not gonna be kind to them

History says otherwise. Portugal and Ottomans were fighting significant conflicts in the waters of the Indian ocean + coastal cities in that timeframe. I don't think shipping to the horn of Africa was much easier than riding currents across the Atlantic, in terms of time or attrition.

Naval battles and city capture in these conflicts were much smaller in history than in the game. But that is true for many wars in EU 4, and over-land marching through neutral/hostile territory + sustained soldiers for 5+ years in big numbers are also completely unrealistic game abstractions, so there is no reason to hammer down shipping arbitrarily.

The biggest problem, however, is "on arrival" attrition and how it double-counts with monthly tick. The same exact shipping will *reliably* kill many thousands more or fewer soldiers depending on the time of month you give the order, and that's both absurd + annoying in gameplay terms.

 

[Cookiepie]

History says otherwise. Portugal and Ottomans were fighting significant conflicts in the waters of the Indian ocean + coastal cities in that timeframe. I don't think shipping to the horn of Africa was much easier than riding currents across the Atlantic, in terms of time or attrition.

Naval battles and city capture in these conflicts were much smaller in history than in the game. But that is true for many wars in EU 4, and over-land marching through neutral/hostile territory + sustained soldiers for 5+ years in big numbers are also completely unrealistic game abstractions, so there is no reason to hammer down shipping arbitrarily.

The biggest problem, however, is "on arrival" attrition and how it double-counts with monthly tick. The same exact shipping will *reliably* kill many thousands more or fewer soldiers depending on the time of month you give the order, and that's both absurd + annoying in gameplay terms.

Shipping/fighting along the coasts is actually _very_ different compared to crossing open sea. The latter was far more challenging historically. Now if it's good from a gameplay perspective is a different matter.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Shipping/fighting along the coasts is actually _very_ different compared to crossing open sea. The latter was far more challenging historically. Now if it's good from a gameplay perspective is a different matter.

Cape Route - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Routes to/from India and Indonesia in real history frequently opted to cross what counts as "open sea" in game terms. The route the game defaults from Portugal to India that attritions the heck out of you is pretty close to historical maps of the route, too.

Fighting is another matter, but the complaint in this threat isn't about open sea combat, it's about arbitrary attrition rates of comical magnitude.

This is the same game where the developers nerfed attrition in Siberia four separate times, down to a cap of ~half of the damage you take just from the act of entering open waters...even waters that historical sailors chose deliberately as an optimal route...

There is no historical case for that level of damage, nor is it possible while being internally consistent to EU 4's model.

 

[jamal bakr]

No! Those fools are going to enter the East Guinea Basis! Otherwise known as the WIDOWMAKER! Just one month in there has a higher rate of fatalities than the entire duration of the Spanish Flu!

 

[jamal bakr]

Cape Route - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Routes to/from India and Indonesia in real history frequently opted to cross what counts as "open sea" in game terms. The route the game defaults from Portugal to India that attritions the heck out of you is pretty close to historical maps of the route, too.

Fighting is another matter, but the complaint in this threat isn't about open sea combat, it's about arbitrary attrition rates of comical magnitude.

This is the same game where the developers nerfed attrition in Siberia four separate times, down to a cap of ~half of the damage you take just from the act of entering open waters...even waters that historical sailors chose deliberately as an optimal route...

There is no historical case for that level of damage, nor is it possible while being internally consistent to EU 4's model.

Those Portuguese has nothing on the utter death wish of the Dutch!

Brouwer Route - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whoah apparently these guys didn't know the most realistic and historically accurate way to get to the East Indies in the 17th century!

 

[Mrkew]

When you select a land unit and tell it to go somewhere, it will pick the path with least attrition.
When you select a boat and tell it to go somewhere, it appears to pick the most attrition possible, crossing open sea whenever it's even a day faster than going around it.

That's my only problem with the system.

 

[jamal bakr]

if they wanted to be historically accurate, they could keep mega-open sea attrition for everyone outside of the western european tech group and the polynesian culture group

 

[TheMeInTeam]

if they wanted to be historically accurate, they could keep mega-open sea attrition for everyone outside of the western european tech group and the polynesian culture group

That isn't, because of what it implies (non-causality).

Probably best would be to represent trade winds/alter attrition and speed based on them, but that's likely too much in the weeds in a game that's still struggling to make naval superiority relevant at all for most regions of the world.

 

[Delpheus]

Honestly it has no real purpose other than nerf a few meme nations, and results in bizarre behaviors like if you want to send troops to Mexico, you first go down to africa and cross at the romanche gap. Still lose 20% of your men in a single month lmao.

I just think it's funny to think of soldiers at the siege of Leningrad saying "Well this might be rough, but I much rather take 4 years of this than a 6 month voyage to Manhattan! (80% fatality rate)".

That's why I don't play the colonialism part of the game anymore....
It's too unbelievable that when you finally get across the Atlantic there's 80% of the crew is dead.

If that's was how it really worked, who the f would ever want to make the trip!

The black death was more pleasant than a trip overseas.