Military System Enhancements [feature suggestions]

[AyonSG]

Here are some suggestions for the enhancement of the military system in EU4.

1. Ability to design custom regiments based on special characteristics, similar to the separate Rajput Regiments or Marines available for India.
2. Just like Naval missions, similar mission systems can be added to the land units, such as a special troops specifically trained to protect the nation's capital, border security forces, troops for protecting trade zones, etc.
3. Ability to choose, switch or add army multiple sprites to differentiate various regiments.
4. Ability to have both cavalry and elephantry units at the same time.
5. More land unit categories to choose/add from in the Army template creator.
6. A weaponry system, where we would be able to select which regiment specialises in which weapon.
7. Ability to partially upgrade land units, where it is natural for the upgradation process to take place in phases; upgraded units can form special or elite forces.
8. Ability to resize army units, just like the ships get resized when they are in ports.
9. Now, if possible or feasible, instead of one army man standing, representing a whole regiment, it would be great to have Tiny Regiment Graphics, at least to the size of the buildings in city sprawls, this whole feature can be optional.
10. The number of types of land units can be increased, apart from Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery, we can have Royal Guards, Knights, Archers, Marines, Police systems, Special troops, etc.
11. Military infrastructures can be improved, separate army command systems can be introduced to control various macro regions within a nation, these location can be more vital and strategic than regional forts, or else there can be an option to upgrade a fort to an Army Command with supply depot and large garrisons and training fields all together, these can perform as military headquarters for that part of a nation.
12. Ability to design a separate rebel control force with ability to move much faster than other troops and having high professionalism so as to avoid maintaining huge troops to suppress a rebel of any size.
13. Ability to choose a Major General or a major commander among all the appointed army leaders who are leading various regiments, who will work closely with the Military advisor for the Monarch and have the highest rank among the military leaders. The personality traits system can be added to the Army general as well. Basically a Ranking system for military leaders.
14. Ability to decide the AI army size of any country in the Nation Designer, option to make them even more aggressive.

 

[3ishop]

1. Such as? Currently the "special" units are based off historical forces that existed and generally have a specific mechanic to them. Either estate mechanic or in marines limited number and using up sailors for manpower.

2. For what benefit? Currently the naval missions serve a role.

3. Not against it, but not sure there's much choice for most.

4. Would like to see a difference between them, could possibly be made a specialist unit.

5. Such as? And why?

6. Not really historical or fitting. There's tens of thousands of weapons in the games time period and for a large part regiments aren't specialised in a single type but mixed and overall effectiveness is going to be the same for the time period.

7. Not sure how this would work, it's just stat changes.

8. So size of the physical model on the campaign map? Not really got a personal use for it but not against it.

9. So the army stacks would be made up of multiple sprites and increases as the size of the stack goes up? Could be an interesting change.

10. All of those fall in to those categories and exists in those slots in game and don't exist for the entire period or all nations.

11. Not really a thing for the majority of the games time period.

12. Never seen a need for this myself, normal army is capable of dealing with rebels.

13. Again not really a thing till the end of the game and even then often rather limited with generals being given a lot of lee-way due to the travel time of information.

14. Not sure what you mean, army size is based off development and modifiers, so wouldn't make sense to set it in nation designer.

 

[AyonSG]

1. Now is it unacceptable to have a feature which lets us design the capabilities and speciality of a custom regiment?


2. If naval mission serves a role then WHY NOT the land missions


5. Currently, we can only create templates with Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery; WHY NOT elephantry seperately; when we can have specialist regiments like the Marines, why not have an option to add them to a template.


6. This is absolutely historical, rather not having it is unhistorical…. By weaponry systems, I mean specialised divisions in army units, like Light & Heavy Infantry, Archers, Swordsmen, etc. Plus this is something Paradox has already done with Imperator.


11. Atleast thats not the case for the Indian subcontinent in the game’s time period. Plus its all about boosting the fortification infrastructure.


14. By editing the armies of the AI nations give an option to create a world where one can set the potential for a powerful opponent…





Look, most of these suggestions are for Sandbox play, naming a country and designing a monarch as you like is not historical either but we have been given this option to play as we like. So WHY NOT.

 

[3ishop]

1. Yes, not historical and not needed.

2. Such as? There's currently no need, we don't have pirates or privateers and outside of the new world don't have the rights to send expeditions to explore.

5. I do agree having elephants as a specialist unit would be good and fitting. There's no need for other slots though as combat units fall in to one of these slots.

6. It isn't historical. That's not weapons but unit class. Until the 1700s you are looking at mixed arms formations. Its why you can choose between some units when you unlock the next rank, it's an entire range of equipment and tactics that change.

Just because it's sandbox doesn't mean it should be added. Sure editing details in the custom nation designers is fine. But I wouldn't expect them to port content from Stellaris to the game just because it's also a sandbox and history and gameplay can be ignored.

 

[AyonSG]

Why such hostility towards having extra options for gameplay, that too if provided through separate DLC... no wonder why most of the EU4 DLCs get mixed to negative reviews whereas they bring significant changes to the base game; if you don't want to step out an inch from being rigidly historical then its ok for you, someone like me who wants to play sandbox or alternate history more than historical campaigns would like to see more options to customize the nation I play and the surrounding world. By now, you know it very well, I'm not asking Paradox to introduce Missile Defence systems, each and every point mentioned can be fitted in within the game time period, its obvious that some thing that may not suit country Y may fit in greatly for country Z, but that's what the DLCs are all about....

Plus the features I'm suggesting are not region specific, anyone playing any nation would like to have a swordsmen and an archer regiments....

About the land mission, I've already suggested some ideas in the first post, troops can be assigned to protect the border, they can be assigned to protect the main trade city or the national capital, etc. if these are unnecessary, then there are tons of things that can be termed unnecessary.... every little feature contribute their part towards the core gameplay....

A historical game with a variety of troops would make the military management more interesting... its as simple as that....

Units specialising in specific weapon is historical, you might call it differently but can't ignore it... not having it and clubbing them together under one icon of infantrymen is limiting. Why there are separate transport ship category when the other ships can also transport troops? There must be some mechanics behind each category, I'm asking for the same but a wider approach towards land units.

EU4 is such a flexible platform that it allows the player to play in whichever way he/she likes, without interrupting the core gameplay, thus expanding the sandbox features won't pose any threat to the historical gameplay.

 

[3ishop]

Why such hostility towards having extra options for gameplay, that too if provided through separate DLC... no wonder why most of the EU4 DLCs get mixed to negative reviews whereas they bring significant changes to the base game; if you don't want to step out an inch from being rigidly historical then its ok for you, someone like me who wants to play sandbox or alternate history more than historical campaigns would like to see more options to customize the nation I play and the surrounding world. By now, you know it very well, I'm not asking Paradox to introduce Missile Defence systems, each and every point mentioned can be fitted in within the game time period, its obvious that some thing that may not suit country Y may fit in greatly for country Z, but that's what the DLCs are all about....

Sorry you are taking it as hostile, that isn't the tone I intend to project. Merly trying to respond to what you've suggested and why I gave it a disagree and why I think it hasn't been part of the games development.

It's not alternate history you are talking about here though but a number are totally fantasy or needless. Those that do fit I have mentioned in my earlier posts.

anyone playing any nation would like to have a swordsmen and an archer regiments....

They already do. Again units aren't just black and white and there's no need or benefit to such a change. Most names are just flavour text.

About the land mission, I've already suggested some ideas in the first post, troops can be assigned to protect the border, they can be assigned to protect the main trade city or the national capital, etc. if these are unnecessary, then there are tons of things that can be termed unnecessary.... every little feature contribute their part towards the core gameplay....

But why? Protect the border from what? Protect the city from what? That's why it's no needed, it does nothing.

A historical game with a variety of troops would make the military management more interesting... its as simple as that....

Again not something that existed. They fall in to the categories already listed and as it's just a difference in the units pips it wouldn't make any meaningful difference.

Units specialising in specific weapon is historical, you might call it differently but can't ignore it... not having it and clubbing them together under one icon of infantrymen is limiting. Why there are separate transport ship category when the other ships can also transport troops? There must be some mechanics behind each category, I'm asking for the same but a wider approach towards land units.

Men would specialise in them, but units were generally mixed formations. That's history for you, infantry was limited as infantry.

Because in-game they wanted to have specific units for transporting units and coding. For example I don't think the game can handle doing fractions of units as some people have suggested before such as light ships carry .5 of a unit and a heavy carries 1. I guess it also works for balance where you can defeat an enemy army at sea if you engage them as transports have bad combat ratings.

It doesn't fit there though. The categories you suggest don't exist for a large part of the games time line and they fit entirely in the current slots.

EU4 is such a flexible platform that it allows the player to play in whichever way he/she likes, without interrupting the core gameplay, thus expanding the sandbox features won't pose any threat to the historical gameplay.

It does when it means having to change the entire military unit and combat system.

 

[AyonSG]

What I'm trying to say is we already have features like rebel control option that can be assigned to troops along with the region upto where its jurisdiction remains, similarly introducing new missions can be interesting. Yes some of the suggestions here might be cosmetic in nature, but if Paradox can keep adding several army sprites and ship models then why not this.

The era EU4 covers, India had separate army units including infantry, archers, cavalry archers, cavalry swordsmen, war elephants and artillery units which were deployed with different tactics in different terrains..... so demanding such formations in a game which encompasses Mughal India shouldn't be unacceptable.

Plus I'm not suggesting anything that overhauls any core mechanics, all these are add ons that can be optional, just like DLC features, just as one cannot access Naval templates without Art of War. So if it remains optional, it shouldn't cause any trouble to those who don't want such features...

 

[3ishop]

What I'm trying to say is we already have features like rebel control option that can be assigned to troops along with the region upto where its jurisdiction remains, similarly introducing new missions can be interesting. Yes some of the suggestions here might be cosmetic in nature, but if Paradox can keep adding several army sprites and ship models then why not this.

That actually does something which is my point. That's why there's not more assignments for armies, there isn't something to do.

Yeah expanding upon unit models is fine, not personally interested in them but as long as they keep selling.

The era EU4 covers, India had separate army units including infantry, archers, cavalry archers, cavalry swordsmen, war elephants and artillery units which were deployed with different tactics in different terrains..... so demanding such formations in a game which encompasses Mughal India shouldn't be unacceptable.

They didn't. Archers fall in to one of two categories, infantry or cavalry. If they fight on foot they are infantry, if they are mounted they are cavalry. I did agree that elephants should be a special unit, they were a more limited supply and rather different to anything else.

Plus I'm not suggesting anything that overhauls any core mechanics, all these are add ons that can be optional, just like DLC features, just as one cannot access Naval templates without Art of War. So if it remains optional, it shouldn't cause any trouble to those who don't want such features...

If you are adding more slots and unit types then it isn't optional. It is a full overhaul of the combat and army system. Otherwise you are saying the changes make 0 difference.

You still have access to the same ships and types.

 

[AyonSG]

There is no denying that there was different units, infantry men equipped with a sword and a shield, infantry men equipped with bow and arrows and then there were separate cavalry categories, yes one study all of them under these such broad categories.

What I'm suggesting is not unheard off, as I mentioned earlier, Paradox already introduced similar unit type mechanics in Imperator, whereas they could have gone with the same three board unit types there, plus it is also relevant with EU4 time period, at least in India.

The mechanics, strategy and philosophy behind these can be pretty straight forward, one would have the option to create elite units with specialised in archers for example, who would have better combat ability and agility than their counterparts....

The player would be able to organise the number of swordsmen, archers, various cavalry units in any regiment, thereby making each regiment unique if needed, to meet the specific mission they are assigned to, like depending on the rival army composition, battle terrain, distance and similar other conditions....

 

[3ishop]

There is no denying that there was different units, infantry men equipped with a sword and a shield, infantry men equipped with bow and arrows and then there were separate cavalry categories, yes one study all of them under these such broad categories.

They aren't a separate category. They are still infantry. Infantry is a soldier that fights on foot. It doesn't set their weapon. Yes they are broad categories, but again with the games system they don't need to go in to smaller detail and again doesn't fully exist during the time frame, formations generally would use mixed weapons.

What I'm suggesting is not unheard off, as I mentioned earlier, Paradox already introduced similar unit type mechanics in Imperator, whereas they could have gone with the same three board unit types there, plus it is also relevant with EU4 time period, at least in India.

A different game that's had a different system from the start.

The mechanics, strategy and philosophy behind these can be pretty straight forward, one would have the option to create elite units with specialised in archers for example, who would have better combat ability and agility than their counterparts....

Agility isn't a thing in the game and when we can have combat buffs across the board for infantry, getting a small buff to a single unit isn't worth having in game.

The player would be able to organise the number of swordsmen, archers, various cavalry units in any regiment, thereby making each regiment unique if needed, to meet the specific mission they are assigned to, like depending on the rival army composition, battle terrain, distance and similar other conditions....

Far too much indepth detail for the game and most of that is pointless and just make your regiments worse. Generrally that type of equipment wont impact their stance of fighting in most terrain or impact their movement speed.

 

[AyonSG]

'again doesn't fully exist during the time frame' .... so for you its ok for Imperator to have separate infantry divisions, a game which is based on an era before the birth of Christ, but the same thing 'doesn't fully exist' in the 16th century....? May be you are right for any European country but not for India ....

 

[3ishop]

This isn't Imperator.