Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Military Experience in Cicero

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Imperator: Rome 9049 Bug Reports 3692 Suggestions 2399 User Mods 675 Tech Support 516 Multiplayer 56 After Action Report (AAR)
Show only dev responses
sr999 said:
historically armies tend to "learn" only after bitter experience.
Click to expand...

Was just thinking about it.

For as much as we know, the new system will promote keeping your experienced cohorts experienced through all the fun stuff @Todie mentioned. But do battles provide any amounts of the resource? Because IMO they should. And I also believe that the worse you did in a battle the more you should get, actually - this should scale heavily with the scale of the battle and your general skill. Huge battle should not only generate warscore but also have impact on your nations willingness to improve its military, need for reform - especially if the battle (or war?) was lost. However the skill of the general leading the battle should determine his ability to draw conclusions from it and the resulting amount of exp points gained.

Question to the devs: does the cohort being loyal to a general affect in any way its exp generation?
 
EpicProGamer76 said:
You are ignoring that loads of military advancements were made through war. Like putting little bits of plate on the sides of legionary to stop them from being decabageated.
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring it. I am just saying that exuding role of characters in military innovation is wrong. Innovation like bits of plate on the sides of legionary are incremental ones with small impact on the outcome of the battles, yes they do accumulate ...over centuries. Innovations like sarisa on the other hand are revolutionary giving army using it leapfrog advantage over their opponents.
 
sr999 said:
In practice I think you should, along with the other recent ones. If the powers that be don't like it, they can always give you a slapping if they think they're hard enough...;)
Click to expand...

I hope it won't happen lol. I added it as a x.1 dev diary, while I'm wainting for the superior wiki mod opinion.
 
arrasas said:
I am not ignoring it. I am just saying that exuding role of characters in military innovation is wrong. Innovation like bits of plate on the sides of legionary are incremental ones with small impact on the outcome of the battles, yes they do accumulate ...over centuries. Innovations like sarisa on the other hand are revolutionary giving army using it leapfrog advantage over their opponents.
Click to expand...

Sarisa was heavily based on greek cities military which became like that due to many years of fighting he noticed copied it and improved it, it was that he allowed combined arms that was really impressive as well as the training of his troops to use it more effectively. At least I think anyways I can't fully remember my Philip boy.
 
Drage said:
You can call them '1.2 feature preview' in a dev diary section. It is what these are, basically :)
Click to expand...
I don't know, when someone open the Dev diary page wiki wants to be able to look at them in chronological order. If I create a separate section this won't be possible.
 
EpicProGamer76 said:
Sarisa was heavily based on greek cities military which became like that due to many years of fighting he noticed copied it and improved it
Click to expand...

No other Greek citistate was using sarisa before. Even if you would define sarisa as just an "improved spear", it still wouldn't qualify, because difference between spear and sariasa (which is just Macedonian name for pike) is that sarisa can't be used in one hand, meanwhile spear as used in the Greek armies of the time was held in one hand and other was used for holding large hopplon shield.

But these are details really that you can argue about. I think we both agree that individual characters played role in the military innovations one way or another. Therefore characters having no impact on the military innovations in the upcoming update is for me not a step in to right direction. And not just for the historical realism reasons, but also because it diminishes role of characters in the game and role of the politics. If anything, politics needs buff not debuff in the game.
 
Last edited:
I agree that rulers should have some impact, but military mana was certainly not the solution to that. Taking a military tradition right now is the accumulated points of your ruler over a long period of time, and if your ruler dies... the points stick around. In a republic, it can be the accumulated mana of several rulers before you have enough points for a tradition. How that translates to what Phillip II did is beyond me.
 
cristofolmc said:
A currency such as this one is not mana. Its a new currency. But not mana.
Click to expand...

It functions exactly like the old monarch power. It is also used for the exactly the same thing in this case -unlocking of the military traditions and is also used exactly the same as monarch power ...by "spending" it. It accumulates exactly the same way as monarch power, by adding number based on the game attribute every month. Only difference is source from which accumulates, experience of cohorts instead of rulers skill and the name.
 
Lambert2191 said:
And this is what determines what counts as mana and what does not.
Click to expand...
I find it quite funny how people on these forums defines mana as something that requires much less player management and decision making than pretty much any RPG with mana I have played.

If implemented correctly army experience as acurrency can be a great addition to the game.
 
I'm guessing that the innovations which increase cohort starting experience will become much more useful now, as well as the ones which affect cohort experience decay.

The amount of starting experience for a cohort should become the baseline for minimum cohort experience. As in the cohort's experience can never fall below the minimum starting experience.

Armies that are inactive in peacetime will lose experience as veterans retire, but all replacements coming into the unit should be going through the same training process that the cohort received when initially formed.

So in general, picking the "+ starting experience" innovations will slightly speed up military tradition gain.

I am liking the directions this game is taking!
 
I don’t like this new system, if you build foundry and then 10 cohorts, you could easily have more average xp then 100k army who fought all around the world, and lets not forget about navy xp?!?

Its way too simplistic for my taste…
 
arrasas said:
No other Greek citistate was using sarisa before. Even if you would define sarisa as just an "improved spear", it still wouldn't qualify, because difference between spear and sariasa (which is just Macedonian name for pike) is that sarisa can't be used in one hand, meanwhile spear as used in the Greek armies of the time was held in one hand and other was used for holding large hopplon shield.

But these are details really that you can argue about. I think we both agree that individual characters played role in the military invocations one way or another. Therefore characters having no impact on the military innovations in the upcoming update is for me not a step in to right direction. And not just for the historical realism reasons, but also because it diminishes role of characters in the game and role of the politics. If anything, politics needs buff not debuff in the game.
Click to expand...

That is basically how I view it, a pike is just taking the make the sticks longer and pointer mentality to its extreme which I imagine caused issues which were worked around.
And yes I agree with you its silly that rulers would have no noticeable affect.

In fact it would be great if unit exp was system that was even more focused on.

It would also be interesting if the more expensive units required a much greater time to build (more of i'd be interested in the affects of this).
If anything foundry should allow you to train troops more slowly (this might be done by them all building in one city however the build speed increase is likely to make them build pretty quick) but allow them to get lots of important exp.
 
Last edited:
This is a currency that makes sense in regards to traditions. It's necessary anyway considering the 4 main currencies should be disappearing.

As an idea, I'd like to see something done with Gladiator cohorts and the experience they can bring to a Legion. Rome did enlist gladiators during the Punic Wars, and later recruited champions of the games as they were battle-hardened.
 
Last edited:
Drage said:
[...] Huge battle should not only generate warscore but also have impact on your nations willingness to improve its military, need for reform - especially if the battle (or war?) was lost. However the skill of the general leading the battle should determine his ability to draw conclusions from it and the resulting amount of exp points gained.[...]
Click to expand...

i think the modifier from war-exaustion can cover this.

Johan said:
Military Experience is a new resource in Cicero, which is used to get traditions. Each tradition you take costs 100 experience.

You gain experience basically by the average experience of all your cohorts. High warexhaustion will increase it a little bit, and relying on mercenaries will reduce it.

View attachment 496540
Click to expand...



its a matter of tweaking the numbers; right now in 1.1 war exhaustion isn't very impactful and rather too easy to shrug off / burn down. this is partially because of how awkward mill-power spending is rn, but not entirely.

... having a mechanic like this in the game will make tweaking of WE-gain (and loss /burnoff) much more dynamic; maintaining a continual non-zero war exaustion will becoming a thing; wars for the sake of superiority and martial exercise may become a thing, even when not intending to conquer (because of diplomatic / AE concerns?),

i think ideally, the algorithms determining xp gain / loss / retain will be tuned such that the generals matter for experience indirectly; a good general will win battles more soundly and retain more experience in doing so. Further, a good general or a high martial ruler/hier is worth your investment and praise ; conquests, events popularity and large armies commanded will give them an increasing number of loyal cohorts - the discipline boon of loyals can also contribute to boosting your xp gain/retain (assuming oyal cohorts can be consolidated, unlike in 1.1)

I think all these mechanics can tie together beautifully - not least with the balance act of keeping generals in check, this adds a whole new dimension to it ; you want your conquests led by the best - even in wars you are confident that you could win with fresh recruits and weak generals.

the only thing i worry for here is all the events that interact with troops and generals - these all need to be looked over with the experience-considerations in mind. The xp-level of any veterans raised through event or other mechanic aught probably not be 0 or even static?
 
I like this mechanic a lot. Fighting a lot should make you better at fighting. This is something all Paradox games could use more of.

You should also consider reducing the XP reduction of reinforcements. Drilling troops in EU4 is strategically nonviable because it disappears after a single battle or siege. It's silly that I almost never get experienced troops in strategy games since XP dilution mechanics make them evaporate in seconds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back