Italian minors need better military national ideas

[B92FS]

While I can understand this kind of derogative and contemptuous statement, when claimed by from 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.

Maybe I explained myself wrong: I'm proud to be Italian! I don't think lowly of my people but the truth is that we are undisciplined people in normal life and in military life (except for special corps), we are very good at many things, in this case (war and military) we prove many times that we are good fighters (but undisciplined) and usually are our leaders that blocked us, so I think increase the combat ability is more correct than a discipline bonus.

Sorry for my English

 

[NorthernXY]

The Italian states could/should all receive +1 relations so that they can have an extra ally for defensive purposes, making it harder to attack, but not exactly buffing their military. Just call it banker or merchant relations.

 

[bbqftw]

At the end of the day - I don't understand how you can expect the 1444 start to ever be balanced, or even moderately balanced-ish.

It is like arguing over competitive mario party.

 

[paulatreides0]

Something that should be noted about Italian mercenaries is that Italian mercenaries were, by and large, popular during the era because a lot of warfare of the era took place in Italy. When you were looking for mercs to recruit you would logically draw troops from the closest place possible, because it saved you greatly on logistics and they could spend more time fighting instead of moving to where the battle would be - being close to your source of manpower also has very obvious advantages.

As such, it wasn't necessarily that Italian mercenaries were so sought after because they were some ubersmensch, but because they were the economically effective and obvious choice. This is not to say that there weren't Italian companies of great martial prowess, because there certainly were, however, it was not the reason why Italian mercenaries were so common during the period.

 

[B92FS]

After a day to think about it I reached this conclusions:

• Papacy: Potentially the best military of Italian minors, could partially compensate the lower morale with policies (religious+quality) and prestige
  
• Florence: +5% discipline and -25% mercenary maintenance, don't know why 5% discipline but are both good, nothing of special but good.
• Milan: +10% Infantry CA, -25% mercenary maintenance and +5% Land Morale from Ambrosian Republic; After The Papal States the best military power of Italian minors
  
• Savoy: -25% mercenary maintenance plus +20% fort defence, good "survival" bonus
  
• Venice: only naval bonus, indirectly may help "Provveditori ai beni Inculti" (-10% Land and Naval attrition)
  
• Italy (formable): +15% Inf CA

I think that the most are generally good and historically appropriate but Venice and Italy could be better:

• Venice: could be more correct a "-25% mercenary maintenance" bonus, historically Venice had good infantry but the most of army was mercenary so I think a "mercenary bonus" have sense. Why paradox didn't think to this?
  
• Italy: Is a little complicated, Italy theoretically represent the Napoleonic Italian Kingdom so what NI could be historically correct? Italian soldiers was pretty good and many times they have distinguished themselves on the battlefield (in this case a discipline or morale bonus could make sense), but if consider Napoleonic Italy the Italian naval idea (+20% Galley CA and -20% Galley cost) don't make sense.....I'm curious, any idea for "solving" this problem?

Sorry for my English

 

[Zak Preston]

After a day to think about it I reached this conclusions:

• Papacy: Potentially the best military of Italian minors, could partially compensate the lower morale with policies (religious+quality) and prestige
  
• Florence: +5% discipline and -25% mercenary maintenance, don't know why 5% discipline but are both good, nothing of special but good.
• Milan: +10% Infantry CA, -25% mercenary maintenance and +5% Land Morale from Ambrosian Republic; After The Papal States the best military power of Italian minors
  
• Savoy: -25% mercenary maintenance plus +20% fort defence, good "survival" bonus
  
• Venice: only naval bonus, indirectly may help "Provveditori ai beni Inculti" (-10% Land and Naval attrition)
  
• Italy (formable): +15% Inf CA

I think that the most are generally good and historically appropriate but Venice and Italy could be better:

• Venice: could be more correct a "-25% mercenary maintenance" bonus, historically Venice had good infantry but the most of army was mercenary so I think a "mercenary bonus" have sense. Why paradox didn't think to this?
  
• Italy: Is a little complicated, Italy theoretically represent the Napoleonic Italian Kingdom so what NI could be historically correct? Italian soldiers was pretty good and many times they have distinguished themselves on the battlefield (in this case a discipline or morale bonus could make sense), but if consider Napoleonic Italy the Italian naval idea (+20% Galley CA and -20% Galley cost) don't make sense.....I'm curious, any idea for "solving" this problem?

Sorry for my English

You are doing it completely wrong:

While Papacy does have the best military set in Italy after completing 3 ideagroups and unlocking full NI set, it's still noticeably worse than any major neighbour. While you suggest to compensate low morale with policies, France, Ottomans and Austria will stack morale and discipline as well. More over, all Papal military bonuses fade away with reformation and absolutism. Also, all those "mercenary maintenance", "attrition for enemies", "fort defence" and so on are minor bonuses that have much less direct impact than plain and simple Morale, Discipline and Combat Ability.

Just for comparison:

• France has +10% Discipline and +20% Morale at 14 ADM tech after comleteng 3 idea groups
• Ottomans have +10% Discipline, 10% Inf CA and +10% Morale (Sunni piety) or +5% Discipline (converted to Coptic) almost at start
• Castile has +5% Discipline and +15% Morale after comleting 3 ideas in first idea group.
• Austria has +10% Morale from start and +3% Disipline (rofled here). Looks weak too, especially compared to Brandenburg, Poland and Ottomans (idea-wise). But still better than any Italian minor. The worst part is that Austria is the best natural ally for Italian player in MP, While Castile often allies with France.

 

[B92FS]

You are doing it completely wrong:

While Papacy does have the best military set in Italy after completing 3 ideagroups and unlocking full NI set, it's still noticeably worse than any major neighbour. While you suggest to compensate low morale with policies, France, Ottomans and Austria will stack morale and discipline as well. More over, all Papal military bonuses fade away with reformation and absolutism. Also, all those "mercenary maintenance", "attrition for enemies", "fort defence" and so on are minor bonuses that have much less direct impact than plain and simple Morale, Discipline and Combat Ability.

Just for comparison:

• France has +10% Discipline and +20% Morale at 14 ADM tech after comleteng 3 idea groups
• Ottomans have +10% Discipline, 10% Inf CA and +10% Morale (Sunni piety) or +5% Discipline (converted to Coptic) almost at start
• Castile has +5% Discipline and +15% Morale after comleting 3 ideas in first idea group.
• Austria has +10% Morale from start and +3% Disipline (rofled here). Looks weak too, especially compared to Brandenburg, Poland and Ottomans (idea-wise). But still better than any Italian minor. The worst part is that Austria is the best natural ally for Italian player in MP, While Castile often allies with France.

I think that is normal that a minor, Italian or not, is weak respect to a superpower. Minor ideas are usually oriented to survive or win other minor (except Brandenburg, it is OP).
There are only 2 states in Italian peninsula that couldn't be considerate a minor: Venice and The Papal States. The second have good military bonus (not exceptional) and is easy remain papal controller, the first is more commercial oriented so very rich. The Venetian army must based on a big number of mercenaries (with a -25% mercs maintenance may be better), the classic "Quantity is quality in its own".

About Italy (formable) may have more sense balance the military NI. Two observations:

1. Are you sure that Austrian military ideas are better than Italian ones? +10% Morale and +3% discipline are not a lot better than +15% Inf CA
2. Probably Castile/Spain chose both Exploration and Expansion so Italy can compete (or do better) with 2 more military idea group

France and Ottomans remain OP!

If we consider Italy as Napoleonic Italy an adjunctive military bonus can be plausible, Italy with +15% Inf CA and +5% Discipline or +20% Inf CA +5/10% Morale win easy Austria and can easy compete with France, Ottomans and a fully militarised Castile/Spain (And make more sense in MP because unify Italy could be very difficult: Difficult to obtain=big reward)

 

[zukodark]

You are doing it completely wrong:

While Papacy does have the best military set in Italy after completing 3 ideagroups and unlocking full NI set, it's still noticeably worse than any major neighbour. While you suggest to compensate low morale with policies, France, Ottomans and Austria will stack morale and discipline as well. More over, all Papal military bonuses fade away with reformation and absolutism. Also, all those "mercenary maintenance", "attrition for enemies", "fort defence" and so on are minor bonuses that have much less direct impact than plain and simple Morale, Discipline and Combat Ability.

Just for comparison:

• France has +10% Discipline and +20% Morale at 14 ADM tech after comleteng 3 idea groups
• Ottomans have +10% Discipline, 10% Inf CA and +10% Morale (Sunni piety) or +5% Discipline (converted to Coptic) almost at start
• Castile has +5% Discipline and +15% Morale after comleting 3 ideas in first idea group.
• Austria has +10% Morale from start and +3% Disipline (rofled here). Looks weak too, especially compared to Brandenburg, Poland and Ottomans (idea-wise). But still better than any Italian minor. The worst part is that Austria is the best natural ally for Italian player in MP, While Castile often allies with France.

Right there, you're comparing Italians to the great powers, each of which have historically been militarily stronger than Italy. You could argue that Italy could have been militarily strong, yet you could say that for most places in the world, but isn't that what idea groups are for? Removing historical differences from nations will never be accepted by most SP and many MP players. If you still want to convince people, comparing them to other minors or middle powers might work better, especially if you make a case of their military tradition being similar..

 

[Mortheim]

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.

Sweden can ally Poland or just backstab for Novgorod.

"Huge" development? Really? Like, if Poland or Lihuania player will ally Novgorod the only way to expand for Russia is steppe. With muslims and another culture group.
Yeah, there are really good players, who can do wonders even in situation like this. But for most players this situation will be devastating.

 

[Zak Preston]

I think that is normal that a minor, Italian or not, is weak respect to a superpower. Minor ideas are usually oriented to survive or win other minor (except Brandenburg, it is OP).

EU4 is an alternate history simulator, so why did my Venice that clashed with France for 300 hundred years and assembled almost whole Italy still had had no military bonuses in NIs? As people stated above, lots and lots of minors in EU4 have extremely powerful NIs even despite being destroyed during EU4 timeline.

There are only 2 states in Italian peninsula that couldn't be considerate a minor: Venice and The Papal States. The second have good military bonus (not exceptional) and is easy remain papal controller, the first is more commercial oriented so very rich. The Venetian army must based on a big number of mercenaries (with a -25% mercs maintenance may be better), the classic "Quantity is quality in its own".

As I stated earlier, big numbers of cheaper mercs is a bonus, a secondary factor. It helps to save you money, but not win battles. Having Curia under control gives you tools to expand more effectively, it doesn't give you direct military boosts like many other religions (abusing crusades won't always work). Also Curia control is completely random, meaning that you can fail even if you have invested most PI af all contesters.

About Italy (formable) may have more sense balance the military NI. Two observations:

1. Are you sure that Austrian military ideas are better than Italian ones? +10% Morale and +3% discipline are not a lot better than +15% Inf CA
2. Probably Castile/Spain chose both Exploration and Expansion so Italy can compete (or do better) with 2 more military idea group

1. Austrian military ideas are quite mediocre comparing to most neighbours but still considerable better than Italian ones (formable). 5% disipline is roughly equal 10% morale and 15% Inf CA in midgame.
2. Castile usually takes Exploration + Quality + Economics unlucky with Enqueue. Expansion ideas are redundant in MP as they have no military policies. Even Exploration ideas are abandoned ones key regions are colonized.

If we consider Italy as Napoleonic Italy an adjunctive military bonus can be plausible, Italy with +15% Inf CA and +5% Discipline or +20% Inf CA +5/10% Morale win easy Austria and can easy compete with France, Ottomans and a fully militarised Castile/Spain (And make more sense in MP because unify Italy could be very difficult: Difficult to obtain=big reward)

Italy with +15% Inf CA and 5% Discipline would still be inferior to most neighbours, it's kinda equal to what Burgundy has with it's +5% Disc and +10% Morale.

 

[Zak Preston]

Sweden can ally Poland or just backstab for Novgorod.

"Huge" development? Really? Like, if Poland or Lihuania player will ally Novgorod the only way to expand for Russia is steppe. With muslims and another culture group.
Yeah, there are really good players, who can do wonders even in situation like this. But for most players this situation will be devastating.

If Sweden allies Poland then Muscovy is dead. The problem is that when Poland forms PLC and gets 3 ideagroups locked, it will have much better army quality (+10% inf CA, +48-53 Cav CA, +15% Morale, +5% Discipline) and much more development. Who would prevent Poland from taking back Southern Baltic and Russian lands back?

Muscovy is balanced in MP by not placing any players on hordes and by weak start of PLC. Protecting Novgorod as Poland works only against inexperienced players ("Subjugate Novgorod" mission is taken from day 0 while Poland rests in interregnum and improves relations).

 

[Mortheim]

If Sweden allies Poland then Muscovy is dead. The problem is that when Poland forms PLC and gets 3 ideagroups locked, it will have much better army quality (+10% inf CA, +48-53 Cav CA, +15% Morale, +5% Discipline) and much more development. Who would prevent Poland from taking back Southern Baltic and Russian lands back?

Muscovy is balanced in MP by not placing any players on hordes and by weak start of PLC. Protecting Novgorod as Poland works only against inexperienced players ("Subjugate Novgorod" mission is taken from day 0 while Poland rests in interregnum and improves relations).

Well, the most decisive victories Muscovy had against PLC were in 17th century (at this time, by logic of the game, PLC will have Space-Marines-in-training). The draw in Livonian War had its own reasons (e.g. newly formed PLC, Crimean raids, minor Sweden intervention, problem with inner circle of nobles in Russia).
Also - your question is strange - Russia should be able to do that. Among others things, player on Russia should be really good diplomat (because Poland player can offer to share Russian territories (with, maybe, backstab in mind), while what can Muscovy player offer? Alliance?), good militarist (having quantity in ideas helps somewhat, but some aspects of quantity group are better, and game mechanics atm doesn't support levee en masse war style and, heck, just doesn't support using manpower overall) and good strategist (cause he should think, like, 5 steps ahead).
We can compare Muscovy+vassals to Poland+vassals+union.
Poland can have 25k army, with vassals giving another 14k and Lit giving another 27k. Union will fire by 1450 100%.
Muscovy can have 29k army, with vassals giving another 14k.
So, basically, Poland has 24k more from union. Because game mechanics doesn't represent how the union worked (Russian managed to conquer Smolensk when Lithuania was under union, because Polish king was afraid of Ottomans).
I'm not sure how this is balanced. Considering, that during hard war between players AI can attack Muscovy player. And the problem is that this horde will take land, while, mainly, in history during this period hordes just raided.
I was able, in one game, to deal with Novgorod and Lithuania (there was player on it because I decided to play Muscovy). The victory was hard and, well, devastating. I'm not sure, that I would be able to win, it this was full union.

I agree that, maybe, it is balanced. But, in some huge leagues, there will be players on one (or even more) of three hordes.

Still, I think, that from all major countries Russia has one of the worst combination of ideas and position.
Funniest thing, that PDX are railroading Prussia, while appearance of this country was one hell of a luck. Muscovy was railroaded by its previous rulers.

 

[Clonefusion]

I play eu4 multiplayer myself and in my opinion Italy should not get stronger military ideas, I would rather buff other national ideas of the italians.

Tuscan ideas
Traditions:
−10% Development cost (maybe paradox could add region specific development cost to eu4 and then give tuscany -20% for italy and so a total of -30%)
+2 Yearly papal influence
Birthplace of the Renaissance

−5% Technology cost (maybe the numbers here could be doubled, this would be a buff military wise by allowing tuscany to stay ahead better in tech and ideas,
−5% Idea cost (rather than just having better troops for all time for little reason)
Condottieri

−25% Mercenary maintenance (this buff on ideas should be buffed in general as it is rly not that strong seeing how it is added on 250% and not 100%)
Tuscan Banking

−1 Interest per annum (this idea makes tuscany broken strong if abused)
Patron of the Arts

+1 Yearly prestige
The same could be done with milan, thing is having less mil ideas makes u weaker which is why paradox should buff numbers on those.

Traditions:
+10% Infantry combat ability
+1 Diplomatic relations (up this to 3 and milan has a much more open diplomacy)
Renaissance Prince

−10% Idea cost (same as florence)
Patron of Music

+1 Yearly prestige
Lowered Power of the Barons

−10% Development cost (same as florence)
The Age of the Condottieri

−25% Mercenary maintenance (same as florence)
Encouragement of Philosophers

−5% Technology cost (same as florence)
Merchant Princes

+10% Global trade power
Rulership through Enlightened Principals

−10% Stability cost modifier (this could be rly a bit higher in general)
Ambitions:

+20% National manpower modifier

 

[Number 7]

Still, I think, that from all major countries Russia has one of the worst combination of ideas and position.
Funniest thing, that PDX are railroading Prussia, while appearance of this country was one hell of a luck. Muscovy was railroaded by its previous rulers.

Giving Prussia better odds is not anyhwere near the level of country railroading they have added in the past. the whole "Netherlands suddenly appears with a fleet and max army and annexes all your dutch land" was much more railroaded. Not that its a bad thing, its fun when netherlands appears

 

[B92FS]

I play eu4 multiplayer myself and in my opinion Italy should not get stronger military ideas, I would rather buff other national ideas of the italians.

Italy as nation or Italians minor? Do you played MP as Italy?

 

[moscal]

But @Zak Preston have rigth - EU4 is militarycentric and military bonus is better than non-military. So OR we nerfed current military bonuses OR we give military bonuses for more countries.

 

[Silverflash]

But @Zak Preston have rigth - EU4 is militarycentric and military bonus is better than non-military. So OR we nerfed current military bonuses OR we give military bonuses for more countries.

I'm not sure I agree with this line of thought. Firstly, I think it is debatable that EU4 is purely military centric. Secondly, if you feel that the game is most fun when played as a military centric game, then you always have the ability to play as a military centric nation.

If more and more national ideas become very similar military bonuses, I feel like the variety and distinct flavour of different nations will be lost, to the detriment of any playstyle that is not military focused. In effect, asking for more countries to have similar NIs hurts the game's overall depth purely to facilitate a single playstyle above all else.

Now I'm no developer, but that seems fundamentally backwards in a game like this. The replay ability of EU4 for many many fans is due to different nations having distinct flavours and requiring different play styles. Why would Paradox want to erode that just to make every "major" almost equally combat focused?

By that logic, if this were to happen, then next we would get demands for all majors to be equally competitive in a trade game, because "balance". Or anything else. But if balance overtakes distinct national differentiation, the attraction of the game suffers, IMHO.

 

[moscal]

Therefore, in my opinion, it would be best way is nerfed military bonuses - still they are highly practical, but will not declass others.

 

[Silverflash]

Therefore, in my opinion, it would be best way is nerfed military bonuses - still they are highly practical, but will not declass others.

Comes to the same outcome - more homogeneous nations. And I personally feel that would be far more harmful to the game's appeal than some nations having a harder time militarily.

Just my opinion, mind you.

 

[Clonefusion]

Italy as nation or Italians minor? Do you played MP as Italy?

I have played venice aswell as tuscany in mp in eu4, venice more than once all in mps organized on the mp forum here.

Btw what also could be done is add unit cost modifiers to mililtary ideas. U should not just get 5% discipline, training your units costs money and so your units cost 15% more.
Afterall prussia was financed greatly by great britain in the seven years war and sweden by france in thirty years war, money has been gaining more importance again lately cause there is less of it.
In my opinion u dont need to nerf or buff mil ideas of nations, you have to balance aspects of the game as how much gold is in the system or how much land a nation can control (there is way too many states in tech in the game) and then nations with mil ideas will have the issue of financing an army and other nations will be able to finance one and could then beat quality with money or finance quality for both benefits.