Once a nation westernizes they get western tech growth but keep their units. But in a late game scenario, in MP games, how superior are western nations to non-western ones who use asian/muslim tech groups?
How superior are western units?
- Thread starter marat271
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Depending on which tech group they are up against they stronger by 1 to 3 pips overall, spread over the 6 categories.
Here's an overview: http://www.eu4wiki.com/Land_units
Here's an overview: http://www.eu4wiki.com/Land_units
They are worse than other units early, the late western units have a couple of pips more (one pip more than eastern units).
Level 30 western infantry have 22 pips, eastern 21 and everyone else 20. This big thing is really how many unit options they have, western have by far the most options so have a level progression whilst Chinese for example have a massive gap between tech 19 and 26.
Level 30 western infantry have 22 pips, eastern 21 and everyone else 20. This big thing is really how many unit options they have, western have by far the most options so have a level progression whilst Chinese for example have a massive gap between tech 19 and 26.
It's a slight edge, much smaller than it used to be. Differences in unit pips at the same tech level are generally very minor, especially compared to the overwhelming effect that generals now have.
That's old information. 1.8 reduced the advantage western units had.
Edit: at least some info on that page is... looks like some is from 1.7 and some from 1.8.
Last edited:
Generals and unit pips have exactly the same amount of effect on combat. A difference of 1 fire pip between units is the same as one between generals.
If you merely meant that general pips vary more, then sure. There are only a few points where unit pips can have a difference close to 6.
A minor thing. The generals make less impact on the outcome in 1.8. Casualties from dice rolls are now linear (were exponential [?] previously).
They are worser than ottoman and eastern units up till 15 mil tech. Pdx jumps from one extreme to other.:sleep:
And in the late game difference is ranging between 1-3 pips.
And in the late game difference is ranging between 1-3 pips.
Last edited:
Generals and terrain are applied both offensively and defensively AFAIK, so being a single offensive fire pip ahead is not the same thing as being +1 fire ahead on the dice via generals or river crossing.
1.8 nerfed the scaling on damage at differing dice rolls too, and as far as I can tell this also reduced the extremely heavy hitting impact of generals to simply heavy hitting. I've had a hard time fighting high discipline armies now even though my generals were excellent, something that wasn't the case in 1.7 where great generals were > all.
In practice, the tech group unit pip issue will rarely be significant. In MP, it will be a bigger challenge to simply play a game that lasts that late.
Where western tends to win is in tech and idea progression, especially the latter. It takes a long, long time to catch up (almost the whole game) in both tech AND ideas if you are denied westernization until 1600. Westernizing before 1520 on the other hand leaves you about caught up by 1600...but in MP who's going to allow that so easily?
One thing lower groups can do in MP is just NF military and stack military ideas. You'll suffer for it, but not TOO badly, and current tech + 4 military ideas hits hard regardless.
Yes, you need to be ahead in both offensive and defensive pips, for all of infantry, cavalry and artillery, to match a one pip general difference.
Mostly the damage changes just made it so that being a lot ahead in pips isn't quite as devastating as it used to. Having a one pip advantage is still pretty close to as valuable as it used to be. If a discipline difference is large, I can see it being more difficult to catch up through an advantage in generals.
unless you are nomads it's a couple pips.
I find it a bit weird that two nations both with the same level of military technology don't perform as well on the field sometimes by sometimes drastic amounts.
If I get a nomad to tech 32 as a nomad what are they doing with all that new technology? Eating the guns?
I find it a bit weird that two nations both with the same level of military technology don't perform as well on the field sometimes by sometimes drastic amounts.
If I get a nomad to tech 32 as a nomad what are they doing with all that new technology? Eating the guns?
One has to assume that all their supplies of metal are going into making cannons, seeing as artillery are the only kind of land unit they can get the hang of.
Lets not turn this into another Horde discussion.
Personally, I am much less likely to both with westernisation now. The advantages gained in exchange for the huge tech setback you get in frequently not worth it. With Western arms trade, ahead of time and units not changing I would only really consider it above Muslim tech.
I also really like the variation in units. Western units are now only the best late game, before that they might have a slight tech advantage but Eastern and Muslim (or other ROTW) units outclass them in when in tech parity. It makes the game much more interesting.
Personally, I am much less likely to both with westernisation now. The advantages gained in exchange for the huge tech setback you get in frequently not worth it. With Western arms trade, ahead of time and units not changing I would only really consider it above Muslim tech.
I also really like the variation in units. Western units are now only the best late game, before that they might have a slight tech advantage but Eastern and Muslim (or other ROTW) units outclass them in when in tech parity. It makes the game much more interesting.
At equal MIL tech the difference is now negligible to non-existent, which is pretty nice.
My Khmer Napoleonic Squares always felt a tad off.
My Khmer Napoleonic Squares always felt a tad off.