Italian minors need better military national ideas

[SPAMbuca]

I think most people agree Muscovy could use a boost based on actual history and gameplay reasons.

Historically Spain had parts of Burgundy, Austria and England as natural allies against France. In fact, France needed the friendship of the Ottomans for balance. If you play multiplayer, obviously that's not always the case.

I think it's said plenty already; there are nations you can form that help you. Italian minors' powers lie in economy/development and not in actual combat. Through history, most of Italy had been a playing field of Spain, France, Austria and the Pope.

 

[freezombie]

In per capita terms, the small Italian city-states were, by necessity, *much* more militarised than the likes of France, Spain or Austria, and should be able to punch above their weight accordingly.

I'd say the baseline +6 force limit for independent nations makes sure minors punch above their weight (per capita/development).

 

[Zak Preston]

I think most people agree Muscovy could use a boost based on actual history and gameplay reasons.

Muscovy compensates it's lack of military quality with huge development and an alliance with Sweden. Also, unlike Italy, Muscovite main rival is Poland who gets it's main boosts after finishing 3rd idea group. Basically Muscovy has a huge window of opportunity to prevent PLC from forming and huge territories to expand in.

I think it's said plenty already; there are nations you can form that help you. Italian minors' powers lie in economy/development and not in actual combat. Through history, most of Italy had been a playing field of Spain, France, Austria and the Pope.

Unlike Muscovy, Italy is locked between 4 superpowers from every direction almost at the start of the campaign. By the time that player assembles half of Italy a competent French player will have 700-800 development and competent Ottoman will have way over 1k. Also powerful economy won't save your armies from being stackwiped. Iv'e already seen a Burgundian player with Defensive + Administrative + Quality ideas (super cheap mercs) being roflstomped by France with ease. Burguandian superpowerful economics couldn't save him from being constantly stackwiped

 

[__AJAX__]

5% displine in MP is actually gamechanging due to sophisticated combat mechanics. Morale plays decisive role until MIL-15, slowly shifting to Discipline later on. Once France gets it's Absolute monarchy at ADM-14, it may consider it's troops the best in the world (quality + economic + offensive gives 132.5% Discipline and +20% Morale in total or quality + religious + quantity that gives 122.5% Discipline and +40% Morale).

The only advantege France has over Pope in military modifiers are that 20% morale (more like 15% in game because of prestige). The rest is easily achiveable with Pope too. The big difference between those two tags is that the Pope usually has, at least in all MP i have played and in which the Papal Player wasnt bad in early game management, a much bigger income then france when both are around tech 14. So it can really use those 50% or even 70% extra force limit while france can't go with full arty backline and fullmerc infantry.

In competitive MP environment where most players are considered more or less equally skilled it's impossible for Italian player to surpass France in development without any PvP. AE hits extremely hard in early stages and French base development is around 350, while Italian is 50-90. So once French player gets what he wants in French region, he usually starts at looking at Italian Genoa.

The difference is that France usually is surrounded by player controlled majors. They can't really expand without expensive PvP wars. Papal states or italian states in General dont have a lot hostile players around them. Fighting ai is easy, especially with military focus like allways in MP early game. The Pope dont even have ae as strictly limiting factor. They can spamm excomunications and get less then 50% ae. Vasallizing Florence after 4 years without ae issues? No Problem. Take genoa and some provinces from neaples and your income allready isnt that far away from France. It doesn't goes that well in all MP but if you have the curia for most time in early game I really can't see how france should keep pace in expansion as they cant even go into italy before shadow kingdom fires.

 

[Zak Preston]

The only advantege France has over Pope in military modifiers are that 20% morale (more like 15% in game because of prestige). The rest is easily achiveable with Pope too. The big difference between those two tags is that the Pope usually has, at least in all MP i have played and in which the Papal Player wasnt bad in early game management, a much bigger income then france when both are around tech 14. So it can really use those 50% or even 70% extra force limit while france can't go with full arty backline and fullmerc infantry.

Papacy is the best candidate to assemble Italy for sure. But I don't think that you have read the OP

• Papacy: +5% Discipline from NI's and +5% Disc from Vatican Library event. The best candidate to assemble Italy: easy access to HRE, a very strong start with Excommunication CB, lots of prestige from government form. Downsides are also significant: can't convert to protestantism (-2.5 disc and -5% Morale) also has to suffer from Reformation a lot. Can't get Absolute monarchy, meaning another -5% discipline comparing to other neighbours.

Also don't forget that competent Austrian players usually want Venetian lands for themselves in return for long-term alliance.

The difference is that France usually is surrounded by player controlled majors. They can't really expand without expensive PvP wars. Papal states or italian states in General dont have a lot hostile players around them. Fighting ai is easy, especially with military focus like allways in MP early game. The Pope dont even have ae as strictly limiting factor. They can spamm excomunications and get less then 50% ae. Vasallizing Florence after 4 years without ae issues? No Problem. Take genoa and some provinces from neaples and your income allready isnt that far away from France. It doesn't goes that well in all MP but if you have the curia for most time in early game I really can't see how france should keep pace in expansion as they cant even go into italy before shadow kingdom fires.

Everything you have described here is a matter of random (or luck, if you wish) and diplomacy. I had games where Papacy lost curia control in the first 5 years and in another game I had 3 curia controllers in a row. Some games for France had finished in 30 years when an excommunicated France tore apart Castile + England + Burgundy. And in some games France took Savoy and Genoa as their top-priority.
The problem is that all those "Italy is rich" arguments usually end when a second Italian player is plced: Pacy + Milan/Savoy/Venice, Milan/Florence + Venice/Florence.

 

[mursolini]

I`m at lost why should Italian minors be competitive in MP. Italy was the place where Spain, Austria and France were competing.
It is like asking for Serbia or Pskov get idea set to be competitive in MP.
Leaving Italian region for players to compete leads to better MP, IMO.

 

[Zak Preston]

I`m at lost why should Italian minors be competitive in MP. Italy was the place where Spain, Austria and France were competing.
It is like asking for Serbia or Pskov get idea set to be competitive in MP.
Leaving Italian region for players to compete leads to better MP, IMO.

The area has too much free development to be left without players, especially in large (20+ ppl) campaigns where some players are placed even in Japan and/or Manchu tribes. The second problem is that Italy will become a feasting table for France who is already one of the biggest OP in EU4, so overfeeding the monster is not the best idea ever,

 

[mursolini]

The area has too much free development to be left without players, especially in large (20+ ppl) campaigns where some players are placed even in Japan and/or Manchu tribes. The second problem is that Italy will become a feasting table for France who is already one of the biggest OP in EU4, so overfeeding the monster is not the best idea ever,

The area has 3 players to compete, 5 if Ottomans and Morocco want to get involved. Obviously, in 20 player MP logic is different, but then banning majors from being player controlled would probably work out best in the case.

 

[hashinshin]

Generally speaking many games are going full Europe now, with multiplayer player count dwindling lately due to Stellaris + HOI4 + no expansion in a long time.

So you'll have ~4 HRE (Austria, Bohemia, Brandenburg, and a minor) probably 2+ in italy (Milan, Florence, Pope being the big ones.) Spain, Portugal, England, France, Poland, Sweden, Russia, Ottomans, sometimes a Hungary or a Denmark or something of that fashion.

And the problem isn't Italy, it's Sweden/Poland/Ottomans/Prussia as always. Those 4 have military powers so ridiculously above everyone else that it just sort of breaks the game. Prussia at least starts small and able to be crushed. Poland gets their shitty government. Sweden starts small and is able to be crushed. Ottomans can be coalitioned early, but otherwise watch them fight half of Europe at once.

If any of those 4 get big however, you might as well not have an army if you don't even have the base 5% discipline.

 

[War_lord]

The area has too much free development to be left without players, especially in large (20+ ppl) campaigns where some players are placed even in Japan and/or Manchu tribes. The second problem is that Italy will become a feasting table for France who is already one of the biggest OP in EU4, so overfeeding the monster is not the best idea ever,

If the major players in Europe are dumb enough to allow France to expand into Italy unhindered, that's indicative of a serious diplomatic failure on their part. If Austria, Castille, Burgundy and England are all asleep at the wheel and fail to keep France contained, that's their fault. And I have to laugh at calling France "OP" have you looked at French history pre 1821?

 

[mursolini]

Generally speaking many games are going full Europe now, with multiplayer player count dwindling lately due to Stellaris + HOI4 + no expansion in a long time.

So you'll have ~4 HRE (Austria, Bohemia, Brandenburg, and a minor) probably 2+ in italy (Milan, Florence, Pope being the big ones.) Spain, Portugal, England, France, Poland, Sweden, Russia, Ottomans, sometimes a Hungary or a Denmark or something of that fashion.

And the problem isn't Italy, it's Sweden/Poland/Ottomans/Prussia as always. Those 4 have military powers so ridiculously above everyone else that it just sort of breaks the game. Prussia at least starts small and able to be crushed. Poland gets their shitty government. Sweden starts small and is able to be crushed. Ottomans can be coalitioned early, but otherwise watch them fight half of Europe at once.

If any of those 4 get big however, you might as well not have an army if you don't even have the base 5% discipline.

Why would game set up like this? Majors are just so far above power curve of minors. If Italy has 2 players and HRE has 4, who is going to contain France, Ottomans, Sweden Poland? How can Ottomans not get big, if they can expand into Middle East and India with impunity?

Why not go Portugal, Aragon, Milan, Bavaria, Denmark, Teutonic Order, 1 dutch minor, Hungary, Novgorod, Crimea or something along the lines?

At the very minimum, there are also Morocco and Mamluks.

 

[Zak Preston]

If the major players in Europe are dumb enough to allow France to expand into Italy unhindered, that's indicative of a serious diplomatic failure on their part. If Austria, Castille, Burgundy and England are all asleep at the wheel and fail to keep France contained, that's their fault. And I have to laugh at calling France "OP" have you looked at French history pre 1821?

There is a single window of opportunity when you can stomp France: until "Elan!" is taken. I've personally beaten France + England as Castile + Portugal in a competitive MP campaign (stacked morale bonuses from Reconquista + Last Tournament and was forced to take Defensive a bit later). After getting +20% Morale bonus and feeding to 550-650 development France becomes way too rich and powerful to be stopped even by 2-3 competent players (Castile has to take Exploration which gives no military bonuses and policies, Austria has problems with Ottomans) and so on. So basically Italy is the most obvious region for France to expand in.

 

[LS22]

The OP has shown no reason to militarily buff italian minors. Stating that it would balance MP games, is stating a preference, not a reason.

 

[Zak Preston]

The OP has shown no reason to militarily buff italian minors. Stating that it would balance MP games, is stating a preference, not a reason.

• Is there a reason in giving Japan +10% discipline and +15% in CA? They haven't achieved anything of note in EU4 timeline.
• Is there any reason in giving +10% Morale for Reformed, +2.5% Disc and +5% Morale for Protestant, +5% Discipline for Copts and Hindu and not giving any quality-related boosts to Catholic, Orthodox.,Confucian and so on?
• Are there any serious reasons in giving top2 military ideas to Poland, as they have been completely removed from the map in EU4 timeframe?

OFC there are! Those reasons are Balance and Gameplay. That's it. Personally I would argue with anyone who would suggest to give an Italian state top-10 military ideas, but giving a second military bonus looks like a good option to me.

 

[B92FS]

I think that a discipline bonus for Italy is not the best answer for this problem: could it "rebalance" the gameplay? Sure! But we Italian (i'm Italian) are not famous to be disciplined people (really! We are not!).
I think a event like the Ottomans' "The Jannissaries" could be more accurate, it will be triggered when all Italian region is under control of Italy and the bonuses could be 5% Inf CA, 10% Cav CA, 5% Art CA until 2 Jan 1821. I think this would permit to have a very good army but not better than other superpowers

Could be a similar event for Venice (for example "I Schiavoni" or "Fanti da Mar") with 10% Inf CA and 5% Morale

Sorry for my English

 

[LS22]

• Is there a reason in giving Japan +10% discipline and +15% in CA? They haven't achieved anything of note in EU4 timeline.
• Is there any reason in giving +10% Morale for Reformed, +2.5% Disc and +5% Morale for Protestant, +5% Discipline for Copts and Hindu and not giving any quality-related boosts to Catholic, Orthodox.,Confucian and so on?
• Are there any serious reasons in giving top2 military ideas to Poland, as they have been completely removed from the map in EU4 timeframe?

OFC there are! Those reasons are Balance and Gameplay. That's it. Personally I would argue with anyone who would suggest to give an Italian state top-10 military ideas, but giving a second military bonus looks like a good option to me.

So, your reasoning is that if there are other non-sensical arbitrary bonuses, let's add a few more. Sorry, i can't agree with that.

 

[raikaria]

Italy's strategy with the worth of it's provinces isn't quality.

It's Quantity and Mercspam. Basically; you burn out the other side's manpower and/or wallet while you basically smack them with your money. And since Italy is so rich; you have a lot of forts as well to slow down the other side; force them to take attrition; and so on.

It's kinda like a Merc-based Russia. Except instead of near infinite manpower you have [near] infinite money for mercs.

 

[hashinshin]

Why would game set up like this? Majors are just so far above power curve of minors. If Italy has 2 players and HRE has 4, who is going to contain France, Ottomans, Sweden Poland? How can Ottomans not get big, if they can expand into Middle East and India with impunity?

Why not go Portugal, Aragon, Milan, Bavaria, Denmark, Teutonic Order, 1 dutch minor, Hungary, Novgorod, Crimea or something along the lines?

At the very minimum, there are also Morocco and Mamluks.

Because minors aren't supposed to 1v1 majors. Minors are there to jump on the backs of majors during wars and hope to slowly increase in power.

Of course it can break down when two majors decide to just eat all the minors between them, but then you're doing bad diplomacy as a minor.

 

[Zak Preston]

Because minors aren't supposed to 1v1 majors. Minors are there to jump on the backs of majors during wars and hope to slowly increase in power.

Of course it can break down when two majors decide to just eat all the minors between them, but then you're doing bad diplomacy as a minor.

Italian minor has a considerable chance to become a major at some point. The problem is that even when it does, it can't fight any neighbouring major due to significantly lower army quality. Even if we have 3v3 situation, Italian player will play a secondary role in this hypothetic war. Unlike Ottomans and Muscovy Italy has no free AIs to expand into after some point, also unlike Sweden and Brandenburg Italy has no godlike military quality buffs.

Italy's strategy with the worth of it's provinces isn't quality.

It's Quantity and Mercspam. Basically; you burn out the other side's manpower and/or wallet while you basically smack them with your money. And since Italy is so rich; you have a lot of forts as well to slow down the other side; force them to take attrition; and so on.

It's kinda like a Merc-based Russia. Except instead of near infinite manpower you have [near] infinite money for mercs.

It doesn't work the way you have described: first of all low quality cannon fodder means that you will get massive casualties, which leads to overall morale drop. Your armies will be stackwiped one after another and eventually you will lose key positions in your war. Be realistic: any good player in European region can maintain at least 50%-75% of his front row as mercs, so most attrition wars usually end when mercs become unavailable/unaffordable.

 

[Ameron]

The military ideas are not based just in game balance it is an image of the country history. Italian minors do not have a history of war, they were just the field in which the big nations clashed. It does not make sense to give them military ideas. That's my opinion.

Actually, italian minors have a long history of war; they simply weren't as relevant as the european great powers. Lots of other states were similarly irrelevant, though they're represented in the game as military powerhouses despite having accomplished nothing worth noting in the game's time frame.
The Knights get better military ideas than any italian minor (lost a province, were gifted a new one). Bulgaria gets better military ideas than any italian minor (didn't even exist, it was Ottoman's land). Ramazan gets better military ideas, etc etc etc.

I`m at lost why should Italian minors be competitive in MP. Italy was the place where Spain, Austria and France were competing.
It is like asking for Serbia or Pskov get idea set to be competitive in MP.

And, surprisingly, serbian ideas are much more militarily competitive than any italian minor, so this argument is self-refuted.

I think that a discipline bonus for Italy is not the best answer for this problem: could it "rebalance" the gameplay? Sure! But we Italian (i'm Italian) are not famous to be disciplined people (really! We are not!).

While I can understand this kind of derogative and contemptuous statement, when claimed by foreign people, I don't really get why italians think so lowly of themselves (and in such an inaccurate way). Aside from this, discipline in the game stands for quality of the army training and leadership, so I wouldn't read it literally.


That being said, I don't think I'd like an inflation of military ideas in the italian region. Maybe I'd change some trash idea (like the ubiquitous -25% merc. manteinance). Italy's ideas, however, should be awesome, given how hard is it to form, and +15% infantry combat ability is okay but definitely not awesome.