Huge armies too easy to move too far (especially overseas)

[TheGrouch91]

I absolutely agree but as it stands EU is not HoI and so implenenting a supply system that makes sense should be very difficult.

I was thinking about something like "supply points" that you can add to a province that you control just like trade ports. It will cost mil points so you wont spam them. Every army is supplied by the nearest supply point. The further away your troops are from such a point the more attrition they take and the less effective (less morale) they are. Having such a point overseas would require you having a transport fleet assigned to it depending on the size of the supplied troops and the point has to be on the coast of course. They should also be more expensive. This way you could prevent an overseas army from getting supplies by sinking the transport fleet which makes perfect sense. Maintenance should also grow with every such supply point to prevent you from putting them down everywhere.

I don't know if that would be too complicated but i think it is fairly simple and would simulate supplies and their limits very well. Just a little idea that I had.

 

[Assalander]

1. Yes, I think a continental unit limit is an easy way to do this, more complex sistems can be a problem

Exactly, that seems like a clever way to solve the issue, and force limit is a concept the AI "understands" I think.

I'd be curious to hear Wiz' take on this issue though. I am sure PI have a very good reason to not have adressed this, if only they could tell it to us.

 

[cristofolmc]

Easy:
1. One ship shpuldnt be able to carry 1000 men. Thos shpuld be almost impossible or at least super expensive. Thos would increase with tetechnology ofc
2. Manpower recovery on overseas provinces should be nonexistent or at least 100-200% slower.
2- A lot more attrition in lands like southameroca or asia and some lands in assia.
3- A lot of attrition more while being carried by ship. The more you carry in one ship the more people dies. This would be reduced by tech ofc.
4- this is optional. A way t. Simulatenthe military and specially spanish and above all british conquest in india and southamerica. Diplomatic subjugation or smthing like that.
5. Liked to the previous suggestion, some kind of local mercenaries in asian and american and asian provinces. As the spanish and british did since they for obvious reasons cpuldnt send troops from homeland they would recruit native people to fight for them.
This last too are just an odea i do not know how They could be implemented

 

[Alexander the third]

But if it was reailaistic one spanish infantry and a small vassal crush a 30k aztec army which IMO would be worse

 

[Voffvoffhunden]

How about a supply range system, where if a unit is outside supply range it would cost twice the upkeep? Possible even twice the manpower to reinforce? Supply range would increase with tech, but early on it would be very expensive to take armies of any significant size off the continent?

At the beginning of the game it could be expensive just to take armies to the other side of Europe.

 

[Prodicus]

Armies on other continents should fight with a malus to discipline and attrition whenever you have more than a certain number of troops in the immediate region.

So maybe Spain could send 5000 troops to fight the Aztecs before the malus sets in, and then they get -2.5% discipline and +1% attrition for every additional troop in Mesoamerica.

The exact number of troops you can supply should probably be a function of 1) distance from your capital, and 2) development of the surrounding region. Also, areas like the inland of Africa could provide an additional gargantuan malus to represent malaria, etc.

Then you could have certain ideas (in exploration and expansion) and techs (probably diplo tech, since it's kinda sucky right now) that provide flat or multiplicative bonuses to your ability to supply troops far away.

Ofc they'll need to make it easier to get native allies for this to work. Still I think it would make foreign adventures a lot more fun.

 

[Tacticus101]

The mechanics of Eu4 are not equipped to handle this change without a significant overhaul and would have unintended effects without other changes. It is better placed to be added in Eu5.

For example, you propose limiting the number of troops that can be sent abroad though supply costs and attrition, but unless you also significantly change the ability of nations to deploy troops across their own boarders, have the ability to recruit local allies and make ambush's a thing, you make it impossible for any nation to conquer anything abroad. In addition you would have to simulate the plagues, the much larger native population and the ability to diplomatically gain control of vast swaths of an area (like the British in India).

It is true that the Spanish could only send a small number of troops to the new world, but those were hugely reinforced by local allies, had much superior armaments, were for a large part privately funded (impossible in the game) and used particular tactics. In both cases they gained huge advantages from taking the Emperors prisoner during peaceful negotiations and massacring a large portion of the nobility.

In the case of the opium war, the British only had 20,000 troops (in the first war) but won the war after only taking a few forts and winning a minor battle, whilst in the game they would have had to occupy the entirety of the Qing empire and fight endless streams of mercenaries.

Ultimately, it would be more realistic to have limits to military power projection, but without a overhaul of many of the games core mechanics it would just cause more problems and fail to achieve its goal.

 

[grommile]

I completely agree that armies move too fast. I fact I would almost double up the movement time between two provinces, regardless of where they are.

Whee, another horde nerf.

 

[totalkrieg]

No, I believe best way to nerf overseas armies is dramatically slowing down overseas reinforcements.

 

[Nassau]

If this is changed, which seems fair and historic, they should at the same time allow the player to recruit soldiers almost everywhere. As recruiting soldiers from conquered land, land of the enemy or getting support from allies in these new lands got them to conquer nations in the new world in the first place.

Decreasing the number of soldiers a ship can carry doesn't make sense, just imagine a transport actually being several ships. Gamewise reducing the number of soldiers a transport can carry would be hell, two ships for one regiment?

Just like you have to imagine an artillery regiment not actually having a thousand cannons, it is just the weight of the unit. Like a transport can carry a weight of a thousand.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Armies should got something like ships (if you are too long at sea, you will start losing units)... so armies= if you are too long/far from your territory/ally/vasal etc, you will start lose units - desertion, disease, supply problems.

1.) Ocean is ocean. You can't ever drink the water. Being on land is different. Sometimes you're on terrain where your army can forage. So this shouldn't apply to all terrains.

2.) We already have this with attrition and manpower limits.

 

[Ober]

Indeed, they are.

Somewhere before El Dorado I went for Moskva -> Russia Copperman game. And it felt really weird indeed, moving massive 40k stacks between Manchuria, Turkestan and Caucasus, depending on where I needed them. Forty thousands of people, moving without any troubles whatsoever, at decent pace, through steppe, mountains, all kinds of rough terrains and jumping into action straight away without any rest.

Not to mention how aggravating it is in Western Europe. In a Milan -> Italia campaign, I had to lure annihilate Austrian armies somwhere in Bosnia, so that their allies sitting in Switzerland and Provence won't arrive to aid them in a short while, like if they got transported by train or something.

Thus we reach to the point where most of EU4 discussions go, the ultimate debate about realism and gameplay. Fixing gameplay exclusively by preventing player from doing something is just outright wrong.

One way to solve this would be adding a visible/working speed stats (I'll be honest I have no idea if there's one) for each unit. That was actually the case in EU2. IIRC INF's base time to get from prov A to B was 15 days, then modified by terrain and river/strait crossing. CAV was 10, and ART 30? Forgive-moi, I cannot recall exact values. That could, at last, give doomstacks some competition. Big armies, although naturally stronger, would be quite predicatable because of their low speed. Stack-waving game would turn into war of maneuver at once.

Other, but requiring more input from Paradox (and therefore should be considered as a brainstorming and not legit solution) is addition of roads/infrastructure modifier for each province. As well all know, said provinces cover only limited amount of territory. And that means limited amount of roads, or infrastructure which an army can use to cross the province efficiently. That becomes apparent especially when it comes to mountains. Would France really be able to cross Pyrrenees easily like it usually does until Napoleonic Wars? Just throw all the stacks of doom across the mountains, like it was nothing.

Georgian Military Road seems to be fine example, a route maintained and used by Russians to enter Caucasus swiftly. Spanish Road comes to mind, but it's a specific example as you really don't see Habsburg Spain with Netherlands in EU4 at all.

With all of that said, I have to note forts and Zone of Control might (and probably will) change current situation, namely curb down stupid stack-chasing and give defender some time to prepare a defensive plan and sit behind walls. Definitely better than being engaging an enemy in equal battle early, and then, surprise, reinforcements from 300-400kms away arrive on time because why the hell not.

 

[grommile]

2.) We already have this with attrition and manpower limits.

Past about 1600 you can comfortably move a 20-stack across friendly Siberian provinces without worrying about anything except "how long is it going to take to get there, compared to when I need it to be there?".

 

[Lee Saxon]

Easy:
1. One ship shpuldnt be able to carry 1000 men. Thos shpuld be almost impossible or at least super expensive. Thos would increase with tetechnology ofc

Seriously? You think transports carry TOO MANY troops? I was going to say they need to start at 2000 and increase rapidly at higher tech levels.

Somewhere before El Dorado I went for Moskva -> Russia Copperman game. And it felt really weird indeed, moving massive 40k stacks between Manchuria, Turkestan and Caucasus, depending on where I needed them. Forty thousands of people, moving without any troubles whatsoever, at decent pace, through steppe, mountains, all kinds of rough terrains and jumping into action straight away without any rest.

Something's changed with attrition since you did that or we're playing a different game. I've seen my manpower zero out just walking across the HRE. With stacks half that size.

 

[Ober]

Something's changed with attrition since you did that or we're playing a different game. I've seen my manpower zero out just walking across the HRE. With stacks half that size.

Don't think so. It was in 1700s already, and as you progress with Military Tech, province supply level is going up. Maybe that's the real problem? After a while attrition just stops being a thing due to supply limit.

Also, I played Byzantium on 1.11 and it was the same, so nah man, we are playing the same game definitely. Probably should've added I meant Russia in 18th Century.

 

[grommile]

Something's changed with attrition since you did that or we're playing a different game. I've seen my manpower zero out just walking across the HRE. With stacks half that size.

Were you marching along mountain provinces owned by tags with Defensive Ideas completed in winter?

Because that's the only time I can imagine "just walking across the HRE" with a 20-stack being enough to zero out your manpower.

 

[mursolini]

People seem to ask for 16 century logistics, but also, somehow, 20th century nationalism and allighment of people to a particular "state".

At any time, it any country, there are plenty of people who will enter the army of foreign state and fight for it, if it potentially provides them with a better deal. It was true for Spain conquering Aztecs, with massive armies from mostly Native Americans, England conquering India, with largely indian troops, and in WW2, where there were hundreds of thousands of foreigh nationals in army of Germany, including hundreds of thousands of Russians.

Reinforcing overseas was in no way more complicated than it was in your country. In fact, the opposite quite often was true. It was easier to arm enemy`s pesants/serfs/whoever and use them to fight for yourself, granting survivers benefits and governing positions, then to take your own pesants, arm them, teach them to fight, and then deal with having to disarm them and return them home.

Also, armies tended to live off the land and have more or less local supply. Britan didn`t had to supply it`s troops in India by shipping food and supplies from London. Indians themselves would supply the British army, for a price, as there really was no reason for them not to. The elites were one entity, the pesants and artisans onther. To whom you pay the taxes, didn`t matter, as long as the amount was reasonable.

 

[William Shakens]

Reinforcing overseas was in no way more complicated than it was in your country. In fact, the opposite quite often was true. It was easier to arm enemy`s pesants/serfs/whoever and use them to fight for yourself, granting survivers benefits and governing positions, then to take your own pesants, arm them, teach them to fight, and then deal with having to disarm them and return them home.

Also, armies tended to live off the land and have more or less local supply. Britan didn`t had to supply it`s troops in India by shipping food and supplies from London. Indians themselves would supply the British army, for a price, as there really was no reason for them not to. The elites were one entity, the pesants and artisans onther. To whom you pay the taxes, didn`t matter, as long as the amount was reasonable.

For small armies probably, but 20-50-80 thousand? They probably didn't even bother sending them all so far in the first place.

The supply from locals may be possible, but the cost of the whole operation would probably make it unfeasible, or at least, not worth it, especially in early stages of the game's timespan. And even more so if they hadn't already previous possessions and established armies in the area.

Take into account that I'm talking troops that are far away from controlled territories and just disembark from overseas, and also remember that cases like the one you describe with India and GB didn't happen until the second half of the 18th C, when trading companies etc. were already established previously.

 

[dnlnn]

First of all you can't compare the numbers of EU4 with reality, if you choose to do so you should start comparing all the numbers, money for example not only the ones you don't like.

Anyway, the problem can be solved easily by penalizing A LOT the reinforce rate of your armies if they are in any overseas province and putting atrocious attrition while traveling by boat. Then you fine tune this ideas and it is no more viable to transport huge armies to the other side of the world.

 

[Ojodeaguila]

No, I believe best way to nerf overseas armies is dramatically slowing down overseas reinforcements.

O

First of all you can't compare the numbers of EU4 with reality, if you choose to do so you should start comparing all the numbers, money for example not only the ones you don't like.

Anyway, the problem can be solved easily by penalizing A LOT the reinforce rate of your armies if they are in any overseas province and putting atrocious attrition while traveling by boat. Then you fine tune this ideas and it is no more viable to transport huge armies to the other side of the world.

This solution will be a bigger problem, you will not be able to reinforce even a small force but still can send a huge force to destroy the enemy army, and later take all his lands, so only big nations can invade in Asia, good for England and Russia but destroy the game of Netherlands and Portugal.