Home Policy: Just discussion

[unmerged(6159)]

No-one has mentioned what I think is the best feature of plutocracy - your merchants are much harder to dislodge because of the trade bonus. Not always outweighed by the higher cavalry costs and worse diplomacy, but it certainly make plutocracy the right choice for small countries for whom merchants are costly and who rely on trade for a big chunk of their income.

 

[Iosoncoluicheé]

All true, the most convenient choice is to be a narrow minded tyrant who reigns, with the help of an intolerant aristocracy, with an iron fist over a crowd of serfs. Whereas it is debatable (but apparently it is an advantage) to be a mercantilist xenophobe who bans every foreign merchant from his land
Ah! And you wonder why DsC and myself go the other way? Come on guys, it is not just about having more missionaries or more bucks, it is about building a decent and ethical state . So to speak, it is more Rousseau and less Hobbes

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by El Comandante
All true, the most convenient choice is to be a narrow minded tyrant who reigns, with the help of an intolerant aristocracy, with an iron fist over a crowd of serfs. Whereas it is debatable (but apparently it is an advantage) to be a mercantilist xenophobe who bans every foreign merchant from his land
Ah! And you wonder why DsC and myself go the other way? Come on guys, it is not just about having more missionaries or more bucks, it is about building a decent and ethical state . So to speak, it is more Rousseau and less Hobbes

Are you suggesting that it's more ethical to build a single-culture, single religion state than to have a state that is culturally and religiously diverse?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by El Comandante

Ah! And you wonder why DsC and myself go the other way? Come on guys, it is not just about having more missionaries or more bucks, it is about building a decent and ethical state . So to speak, it is more Rousseau and less Hobbes

I'll take Hobbes any day with Calvin as Supreme Dictator for Life

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen

I'll take Hobbes any day with Calvin as Supreme Dictator for Life

Ya we know, we have read some of your AARs.

 

[Arilou]

When playing Sweden I found that quntity sucks Why? Because of attrition! You need as good armies as possible for as small support as possible, marching large armies through russia (or even from to the frontier) can cost you TONS of men if you have too many.

 

[King of Men]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Are you suggesting that it's more ethical to build a single-culture, single religion state than to have a state that is culturally and religiously diverse?

Well, obviously! I mean, how do you get to be multicultural and multireligious except by going out and conquering other lands? I think it is generally considered quite objectionable to kill people, especially by the ones being shot.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

You can get very multicultural and somewhat multireligious simply through diplomacy. Oh yeah, I'd have to be aristocratic for that. And that just isn't right.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Arilou
When playing Sweden I found that quntity sucks Why? Because of attrition! You need as good armies as possible for as small support as possible, marching large armies through russia (or even from to the frontier) can cost you TONS of men if you have too many.

However, you can afford to lose many more men to attrition since they are cheap and plentiful.


And once you start besieging provinces in the snows of Russia you will lose the same amount of troops to the winter whether they are quantity or quality.

The only difference is that you can more easily replace them if you've gone quantity.

Quality almost forces you to take such winter provinces by assault because of your low manpower, and even with increased morale, assaults are iffy if the walls haven't been breached by siege.

Quantity allows you to keep sending in a few thousand troops extra per month while the siege goes on.

At quality=1 your manpower is 2.8 times as large as it is at quality=10.

"Quantity has a quality all its own" - Joseph Stalin.

 

[unmerged(1064)]

Originally posted by Arilou
When playing Sweden I found that quntity sucks Why? Because of attrition! You need as good armies as possible for as small support as possible, marching large armies through russia (or even from to the frontier) can cost you TONS of men if you have too many.

You wouldn't typically use those extra armies in the same province. You would use them to attack two (or three) provinces at once rather than one.

If you are forced into a narrow, one province front war, then quality might be a better choice. This is unusual, but even then, having 2-3 times more armies (in succession, not in the same province) should carry the day.

I think a better justification for quality would be if you could use it to assault successfully, more often. But I don't think the moral boost from quality is enough to have a significant effect on this. Especially later in the game, after the more important DPs are adjusted properly.

Has anyone had experience to the contrary?

[EDIT] Shoot! Beaten by the Doctor! [/EDIT]

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by King of Men


I think it is generally considered quite objectionable to kill people, especially by the ones being shot.

Good point.

 

[Arilou]

Many of the russian provinces lack fortresses, or have only minimal ones. And the smaller army size really helps (province size and all that, having 5% attrition is a lot better than having 30%)

 

[unmerged(2037)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen

Quality=1, i.e. one step from max quantity. Better to field a large cheap supportable army, and have a large manpower pool, than an expensive small army and a small manpower pool.

Remember that quantity not only increases your manpower (and thus your supportable limit), but also reduces both the recruiting and upkeep cost of infantry and cavalry. And casualties in combat depend on the number of troops, not morale. Hence,

Quality allows your armies to fight longer battles due to higher morale. This is very useful in the early game when morale is low.

Quantity allows your armies to kill more enemies due to more men. This is useful throughout the game.

I agree if you want make a lot of wars or have many historical leaders. However, if I play a peaceful minor oriented to colonizing I tend go for max Quality and max Offensive. All default leaders are 2/3/3/0 (-1 siege seems not to apply) and with added morale I can fight defensive wars (if any) pretty easily.
Also I am not sure if DP settings affect also support costs directly or only by the supportable amount.

 

[unmerged(2037)]

Originally posted by Arilou
Many of the russian provinces lack fortresses, or have only minimal ones. And the smaller army size really helps (province size and all that, having 5% attrition is a lot better than having 30%)

Not sure, but the numbers 5 and 30 are irrelevant. More likely 5% or 10-15%. I think you can get 30% attritioin only during winter in Russia.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by horragoth


I agree if you want make a lot of wars or have many historical leaders. However, if I play a peaceful minor oriented to colonizing I tend go for max Quality and max Offensive. All default leaders are 2/3/3/0 (-1 siege seems not to apply) and with added morale I can fight defensive wars (if any) pretty easily.

Fair enough. You could do the same with quantity, but I know the attraction small powerful armies holds... So long as you are going to play peacefully in singleplayer.

(The "our armies may be small, but they are the best damn armies on the continent, Sire" feeling )

But then, as has been noted before, just about anything will work in sinleplayer, since the AI is incurably incapable of exploiting a weakness on your side, once you know how it works, unless you really make a big mistake.

Also I am not sure if DP settings affect also support costs directly or only by the supportable amount.

I, however, am. DP settings do affect the support cost. The support cost is, IIRC, 1/240 of the recruitment cost. Which is why high-offensive players pay through their nose for artillery upkeep.

Easy to test:
Buy enough artillery, cavalry, or infantry, that the upkeep is significant. Change a dp-slider that affects the price of a large part of your army. Notice that the upkeep cost changes.

 

[unmerged(2037)]

Peter Ebbesen:

Hmm, the increased upkeep for arty is the thing I forgot to take into account. Anyway I already know that Quantity (+ Defensive) is better in most cases as I learnt the hard way.
I tried Timurids/Mughals WC and failed to take Americas as well as half of Europe by 1820 due to too small number of supportable armies. Then I read your "Timurid Scientists" ...

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
No-one has mentioned what I think is the best feature of plutocracy - your merchants are much harder to dislodge because of the trade bonus.

Ah, so that's why the AI went after the Dutch merchants last when I cancelled my TA with them after diplo-annexing Italy. They were the hardest to dislodge. "Imperial protection" increases my trade income by a third - at least. I'm going free trade now to become more competitive.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by horragoth
Peter Ebbesen:

Hmm, the increased upkeep for arty is the thing I forgot to take into account. Anyway I already know that Quantity (+ Defensive) is better in most cases as I learnt the hard way.
I tried Timurids/Mughals WC and failed to take Americas as well as half of Europe by 1820 due to too small number of supportable armies. Then I read your "Timurid Scientists" ...

Actually, in the Timurid Scientists I went with offensive+quality to start with for roleplaying purposes.

However, during the game, it became obvious that I needed to reduce quality to field enough troops to keep down the rebels (at a time when manpower was already > 100,000), and the game would have been much easier had I gone quantity from the start.

....And I never fielded all that much artillery until the last stages of the game. The following statistics shows what dp-settings can do to your costs, really...

From the final chapter of the Timurid Scientists
By 1807 the monthly income was 4,413 and the yearly income approximately 56,000. Most of this wealth was generated in the 34 Centres of Trade in the Empire.

The monthly expenses were 2,312. The 6,599 artillery pieces bore the brunt of the expenses at 1,753 ducats per month. The 2,966,998 infantry and 1,557,024 cavalry only cost 435 ducats in comparison. The army supply limit of 1,249,000 men was, of course, passed a long time ago.

The navy ended up costing 124 ducats monthly for 346 warships and 216 transports. Cheap at twice the price, actually.

Yes, due to medium quality, high offensive, aristocracy, and land, the upkeep of 6,600 artillery pieces was about four times that of 4,500,000 men

 

[Iosoncoluicheé]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
You can get very multicultural and somewhat multireligious simply through diplomacy. Oh yeah, I'd have to be aristocratic for that. And that just isn't right.

I meant that (for me) EUII involves a certain amount of role playing. So I might decide to go Innovative and to build a fine art academy in my capital even if I could be better off being narrowminded and building a refinery. And no, I don't seriously think playing EUII brings about any major ethical implications, it's just that I like to rule a country I like.

 

[unmerged(10189)]

For me it depends on the country i play. If im playing a more land based nation, I tend to go max arist. max cent. max land, mid mercant, midnn, max qual, mid serf, max offensive.

And for my nations that i create colonial empires i have a different view. Mid arist, max cent, mid land, max free trade, more narrow, less serf, mid offensive... etc.

anyhoo, thats all i got to say. Nuff time on here, im going to go play the game...