Imperator Dev Clash - Tuesdays 15:00 CET

[Darth.]

It's all great if you repel 8 players at the same time. But it's even better when you take a province from Rome. Celticia is clearly the winner here. And they could challenge Rome in naval dominance (although I doubt it even if they combine their fleets with others, Rome can still pump out more triremes faster as seen in the Punic Wars)

Sure they took a province but that province was taken by enforcing peace, and is pretty much worthless to Rome. All it did was mark Celticia down for death sooner rather than later.

 

[EU3NOOB]

It's all great if you repel 8 players at the same time. But it's even better when you take a province from Rome. Celticia is clearly the winner here. And they could challenge Rome in naval dominance (although I doubt it even if they combine their fleets with others, Rome can still pump out more triremes faster as seen in the Punic Wars)

The problem with Rome is that now that Rome has North Africa, Most of Gaul, and a significant buffer in the Balkans KJ is essentially unstoppable.

So long as Italy and North Africa remain untouched Rome is invincible.

 

[Palando]

Do we know how much WS would be necessary to fully annex Pritania, Macedon and Rome? Is there a WS cost limit for provinces, because I immagine that pop growth could make it go up astronomically high?

 

[KHK001]

Can KJ Annex the rest of Gaul if he has more than 90 WS?

 

[KaiserJohan]

Can KJ Annex the rest of Gaul if he has more than 90 WS?

Doubt it, even with a 100% peace - in all likelyhood it's either force for one province, or try and stabhit for a handful, as fully occupying anyone at this point is going to be very tough.

That slice from I took from south-western Gaul was ~95% warscore alone.

 

[Crunbum]

Doubt it, even with a 100% peace - in all likelyhood it's either force for one province, or try and stabhit for a handful, as fully occupying anyone at this point is going to be very tough.

That slice from I took from south-western Gaul was ~95% warscore alone.

Personally, I really like how the longer the game lasts, the less territory you can reasonably take in one war. Its the opposite of euIV where everyone would be outraged and the entire europe would band against you if you took a single 30 dev hre province in 1444, but you could annex ming in one war lategame due to absolutism and stuff.

Hopefully similar mechanics don't make it into this game so lategame is more about huge wars of coalitions of giant blobs, rather than one giant blob devouring a few other, also giant, but completely helpless, blobs. And the fact there's no advantage of being a specific tag unlike in EuIV is also great. Forming Prussia or even France was often just a too big of an advantage, and it kinda killed all the fun in multiplayer.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

He has to constantly burn his military power to sustain his armies and mercs already. Heavy infantry is hella expansive (five times the cost of light infantry, in fact).

And morale from wages wouldn't help him with anything much. It doesn't actually improve the killing power of soldiers, it just means they can stay in battle longer. The majority of KJ's losses are either to attrition from occupation and sieges (in which case its useless), from the few dozen different battles of the same Illyrian province (in which case a morale increase wouldn't help him much also, because those tend to be one sided, with a few exceptions), or from battles against Pritannia that he'd have won anyways because of the overwhelming numbers advantage on that front.

So KJ doesnt really need morale much imho, and certainly not enough to slow down his progress with inventions & other military stuff even more than it already has due to all the power burning.

As a side note, having more morale can be detrimential. If your army can stay in a battle that its losing for longer, its going to lose more men than it would have had it been forced to retreat earlier.

In EU4 morale also affects morale damage. Having higher morale means your enemies morale goes down more quickly. I was assuming it was the same here.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Personally, I really like how the longer the game lasts, the less territory you can reasonably take in one war. Its the opposite of euIV where everyone would be outraged and the entire europe would band against you if you took a single 30 dev hre province in 1444, but you could annex ming in one war lategame due to absolutism and stuff.

Hopefully similar mechanics don't make it into this game so lategame is more about huge wars of coalitions of giant blobs, rather than one giant blob devouring a few other, also giant, but completely helpless, blobs. And the fact there's no advantage of being a specific tag unlike in EuIV is also great. Forming Prussia or even France was often just a too big of an advantage, and it kinda killed all the fun in multiplayer.

This is the age of huge conquests, though. And e.g. the Romans conquering Gaul happened late game.

 

[KHK001]

Yeah i think KJ need an ally if he want to end this coalition with less attrition, Armenia and parthia for example

 

[cristofolmc]

In EU4 morale also affects morale damage. Having higher morale means your enemies morale goes down more quickly. I was assuming it was the same here.

I dont think it is. Moral seems to hold on for a long time. Too long I'd say. I don't think battles should be that long or even if thats historically accurate.

 

[Manbearpig]

fine lets believe romans that the gauls had that many troops but you are forgetting something crucial. while rome perhaps fielded 60 000 , they did not have another 160 000 just waiting 200 miles south and another 500 000 in africa and balkans (100 years earlier)

They may have not been mobilized or fielding as many men because they were not at war, but they still had armies.
Those 60,000 weren't the rallied forces of Rome. It was the army of one governor.

 

[Denkt]

Doubt it, even with a 100% peace - in all likelyhood it's either force for one province, or try and stabhit for a handful, as fully occupying anyone at this point is going to be very tough.

That slice from I took from south-western Gaul was ~95% warscore alone.

Have you consider to allow wars with multiple claims like if you have 3 claims you could force take 3 provinces? They are quite expensive with a base cost of 200 Power per claim so I don't think it would cause any problem by allowing enforcement of multiple claims other than perhaps the Diadochi war but that is a special case.

I dont think it is. Moral seems to hold on for a long time. Too long I'd say. I don't think battles should be that long or even if thats historically accurate.

Some units such as Heavy infantry suffer less morale damage and only 30 units fight for each side so alot of unit wait for their turn and probably don't suffer much morale damage while waiting.

Do we know how much WS would be necessary to fully annex Pritania, Macedon and Rome? Is there a WS cost limit for provinces, because I immagine that pop growth could make it go up astronomically high?

It would be resonable if provinces outside of your capital region was far easier to take by reducing their warscore or allowing cheaper claims on these.​

​

 

[Superdark33]

Heck yeah! Aestuia representation!!!

A Macromania-Aestuia-Suionia coalition to sack rome when?

 

[Crunbum]

Have you consider to allow wars with multiple claims like if you have 3 claims you could force take 3 provinces? They are quite expensive with a base cost of 200 Power per claim so I don't think it would cause any problem by allowing enforcement of multiple claims other than perhaps the Diadochi war but that is a special case.

I don't like that. I mean, power in this game sounds far cheaper than in EuIV so far, we saw plenty of countries with 2k of just military power alone saved and waiting for use in the stockpile. 200 power a province is really not a lot, i'd wager cheaper than diplo power cost of taking stuff in euIV and thats never stopped anyone from conquest.

Currently, if you want to take multiple provinces, you just need to beat the enemy enough to be able to force him to peace, either by full occupation, or by stab hitting. I think its fair. And if you just want to take the war goal (which is not little, mind you, most provinces are quite large), then you just need to occupy it and wait. I'd consider that system an improvement compared to the previous games..

There's already the world conquest achievement in the game, and its not even tagged as hardest difficulty. I don't want the game to become about who can paint the map the fastest. I don't want to be forced to think about expansion 24/7, I want playing tall to be viable if I choose to. And this kind of change would just promote snowball more than anything.

It would be resonable if provinces outside of your capital region was far easier to take by reducing their warscore or allowing cheaper claims on these.

​

I hope they don't go in that direction too, I want to play a game, not some weird, animated version of Paint. I honestly don't care if it was the age of huge conquests, how much territory could be taken in one war etc. I don't want to be able to unify the mediterrenean in 100 years through trucebreaks in a few easy wars, and then do nothing for the rest of the game. Huge conquests would accrue a crapload of AE in current build anyways so going on a rampage across the world like Alexander did, without the claims, is simply not doable without the country shattering into pieces due to revolts a few years later. And I'm okay with that.

 

[Denkt]

I think its fair.

Basically what this mean is the larger you get the hard it become for anyone to take anything from you which is basically the opposite of reality. Large countries should have a hard time keeping Everything while you really need to defeat a small country to take anything.

Basically the current version mean that the Alliance can not really ever hope to defeat Rome because to take anything serious from Rome they need to occupy the whole country which is not going to happen.

I want playing tall to be viable if I choose to.

And still you support a thing that boost wide not tall.​

 

[egladil]

I don't like that. I mean, power in this game sounds far cheaper than in EuIV so far, we saw plenty of countries with 2k of just military power alone saved and waiting for use in the stockpile. 200 power a province is really not a lot, i'd wager cheaper than diplo power cost of taking stuff in euIV and thats never stopped anyone from conquest.
​

The reason for people having around 2k saved military is because of the high cost of military traditions. The first one costs 800 and price increases for each one you buy. You can lower the price a bit with inventions but this far into the game they tend to cost between 1500 and 2500 military power.

The other power types you tend to have much less of.

 

[Denkt]

The reason for people having around 2k saved military is because of the high cost of military traditions. The first one costs 800 and price increases for each one you buy. You can lower the price a bit with inventions but this far into the game they tend to cost between 1500 and 2500 military power.

The other power types you tend to have much less of.

Maybe you should have other ways to spend military Power that don't encourage you to stockpile thousands of military Power. I know some military actions cost Power but they don't seems to be used often.

 

[KaiserJohan]

The reason for people having around 2k saved military is because of the high cost of military traditions. The first one costs 800 and price increases for each one you buy. You can lower the price a bit with inventions but this far into the game they tend to cost between 1500 and 2500 military power.

The other power types you tend to have much less of.

Military tech decreases the cost by 25% per level aswell so that helps. I've also spent so many points on building roots, hiring mercs and army reorganization ability by now though!

 

[Crunbum]

Basically what this mean is the larger you get the hard it become for anyone to take anything from you which is basically the opposite of reality. Large countries should have a hard time keeping Everything while you really need to defeat a small country to take anything.

Uh..no? Thats how it should be? You can take a province from a great power just fine by holding onto it for some time. And a province is enough. Why should a great power be forced to lose multiple provinces just because it got some backwater region occupied? How are you going them to force them to sign a peace treaty if you don't occupy anything important and they still have their military potential and heartland untouched? Its a great power for a reason.

If you really want to take more, you ought to have to work hard for it, because, in reality, Internal stability and revolts were a far larger threat for most large empires than external enemies. Because a great power is a hegemon by definition. It seldom has any serious rival states.

One thing you cant do against small states that you can against large ones is inciting rebels so they secede and then going to war. And we saw that it works just fine as a tactics. Saxony would have gotten completely dismantled in one war had the Bosphoran not helped them.

Basically the current version mean that the Alliance can not really ever hope to defeat Rome because to take anything serious from Rome they need to occupy the whole country which is not going to happen.

Not true. They just need to get 50% warscore and they can stabhit. Battles alone cap at 25, you get another 25 from full wargoal occupation, you can easily take quite a lot even if you dont even touch Italy proper.

And still you support a thing that boost wide not tall.

​

No, you support something that lets a great power gobble up a major one in one war. What I'm supporting is keeping great powers just that - great. While not making everyone else free clay either.

To be honest, watching the coalition wars with Rome last clash was the most interesting part of all the dev clashes so far to me. It just felt like... a proper war, you know? Not an, inevitable, one-sided, though maybe delayed due to need to siege, stomp like 90% of all conflicts in EuIV.

 

[Denkt]

Uh..no? Thats how it should be? You can take a province grom a great power just fine by holding onto it for some time. And a province is enough. Why should a great power be forced to lose multiple provinces just because it got some backwater region occupied? How are you going them to force to sign a treaty if you don't occupy anything important and they still have their military potential and heartland untouched? Its a great power for a reason.

Because you don't need to sign a Peace treaty in order to be the one in Control of stuff. If a country have occupied something for a number of years it is resonable to assume that this area is now part of that country. Like how great would a Power actually be if it can not defend its cities or even recapture them for the number of years it take for the claim to take effect. A great Power should mean you really can defend your boarders or else you risk losing them.

Why do you think Rome had so much economical problem, many of its provinces could not pay the cost it took to pay the army needed to Control them. It was a big reason why Rome started to ditch territory because it got way to expensive to Control them.

Lol, no? They just need to get 50% warscore and they can stabhit. Battles alone cap at 25, you get another 25 from full wargoal occupation, you can easily take quite a lot even if you dont even touch Italy proper.

Not going to happen, they get next to no warscore for occupation and next to no warscore from battles.

No, you support something that lets a great power gobble up a major one in one war. What I'm supporting is keeping great powers just that - great. While not making everyone else free clay either.

Many great Powers fell quite quickly, like Phryiga only needed to lose one battle in order to lose pretty much Everything. Selucid lose alot of land quickly and Egypt was pretty fully annexed without the need to occupy the whole country.