My Top Three

[unmerged(4877)]

My top three wish list items for the new EU, beside the bug fixes (esp. game saving), from the various discussions on the wish list:

1. Ethnicity/Linguistic groups, with affects similar to religion.
2. Troop quality, allow troops to progress from recruit, to veteren, to elite.
3. Don't stop at 1820, go another 90-100 years.

 

[unmerged(255)]

Originally posted by von Wittenburg
My top three wish list items for the new EU, beside the bug fixes (esp. game saving), from the various discussions on the wish list:

1. Ethnicity/Linguistic groups, with affects similar to religion.
2. Troop quality, allow troops to progress from recruit, to veteren, to elite.
3. Don't stop at 1820, go another 90-100 years.

1. I really don't see ethnicity/linguistic groups having similiar affects to religion during the EU timeline (and even beyond till mid 19th century.) Just consider Serbs and Croats, who are both south slavic and basically speak the same language. Religion should be of primary importance in social issues for EU2, as it was in EU. Perhaps another use for linguistic groups can be found?

2. I'm all for it.

3. Industrialization, real nationalism and railroads might prove too much to deal with...

 

[Lucidor]

Re: Re: My Top Three

Originally posted by tuna

3. Industrialization, real nationalism and railroads might prove too much to deal with...

Exactly... I'd like to think of myself as a good grey eminence, so I'd rather not have that kind of stuff do me in... Tore up Austria pretty bad...

 

[unmerged(3865)]

I really want to see troop quality implemented. Maybe it will be. They are adding mercanaries as far as I have heard.

 

[unmerged(28)]

1. Is already in EU2

2. Is in EU2 in the form of the Domestic Policy

3. Nope sorry!

/Greven

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Number 1 makes sense when number 3 is the goal. Ethnic/Linguistic issues started with Napoleon and became significant in the 1800's. I agree that it would be a lot of work to add the railroads, etc, but it would be great to play the German Unification, the American War between the States, and the rise of former colonies to become colonial states in their own right.

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Greven said

3. Nope sorry!

EU3?

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by von Wittenburg
Greven said


EU3?

No comments...

/Greven

 

[unmerged(4955)]

3. is already in the EU (if you mean European Union, that is)


McHrozni

 

[Savant]

Greven -

If you release it, I will buy 3 copies.

 

[Blade!]

Yeah, I think 1820 is the pretty close to the perfect time to end time as we know it... Railroads, steamships, and telegraphs would mess everything up and troops would fly across the world to fast.
As for linguistics/ethnicity... I think that is great... It certainly WAS an issue back then... people just didn't wake up in the 1900's and realize they had issues resulting from their differences. I mean the other nations of the Indian Sub-continent certainly had some harsh feelings reserved for the Bengalis who operated the British System for the Raj, and grew rich and educated in exchange.

 

[unmerged(2970)]

Originally posted by Greven
1. Is already in EU2
2. Is in EU2 in the form of the Domestic Policy
3. Nope sorry!

/Greven

Probably as answer to:

1. Ethnicity/Linguistic groups, with affects similar to religion.
2. Troop quality, allow troops to progress from recruit, to veteren, to elite.
3. Don't stop at 1820, go another 90-100 years.

Greven,
I am a little confused - how it is possible through Domestic Policy to increase troop quality, why not thru successful warfare?

Maybe I misunderstood something...

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Cornelius

Probably as answer to:


Greven,
I am a little confused - how it is possible through Domestic Policy to increase troop quality, why not thru successful warfare?

Maybe I misunderstood something...

Because Officer's academies, recruitment policies, drill reglements, tactical reglements, fortification corps as a formal device to improve siege warfare was all part of a bureaucratic process that had to be implemented or not... Secondly the time and interest spent on Land warfare often ment that that Country more or less became a Land Power and that the naval branch was retarded ( and of course vice versa).

When we talk about troop quality by experience I do not believe it had that great impact at the later period of the game. That the english bowmen present at the Battle of Agincourt was veterans with a great knowledge to play the game with their knives I fully conceed. But for a rifle man standing in the middle of a square at the Battle of Waterloo or the Battle of Poltava I do not think experience was the important thing but training.

/Greven

 

[Sir James]

I do not think experience was the important thing but training.

I agree – training, organisation and morale were more important then experience (though experience could make up for, or at least expose, defects in those three).

Inexperienced British troops at Waterloo performed well, such as the Guards, and in NW Europe in WW2, new formations often significantly outperformed veteran units such as the 7th Armoured Division

 

[Besuchov]

But beeing at war should improve the understanding of warfare. The Swedish successes i the 30 years war came from lessons learnt i the wars against Russia and Poland in the baltic states. And correct me if i'm wrong but the superiority of the spanish infantry in the early period of the game, did'nt this come from the fact that they had been at war with the muslims for a long time?
At the very least a coutry that is at war should get a small investment bonus for military technology.

 

[Sir James]

If it has any sense, a country often at war will be spending all it can on military development, whilst a country mostly at peace will perhaps ignore it – and potentially get caught out.

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Besuchov
But beeing at war should improve the understanding of warfare. The Swedish successes i the 30 years war came from lessons learnt i the wars against Russia and Poland in the baltic states.

Maybe when come to cavalry, but infantry which was the centrepoint he imported the latest dutch methods of waging war and training troops.

And I still believe than Le Tellier's and Louvois' work was more important for the French Army, than it going from point A to B fighting battles. But in some sense of course experience, tactics and training is different sequences of the same process.

/Greven

 

[unmerged(4944)]

I agree with focusing on training (as expressed via technology etc) rather than experience as gained in battles etc. I'd feel a bit uncomfortable with an army winning a battle because of experience it gained 220 years earlier.

On the other hand, if a leader had a 10% chance of gaining +1 point in either manuever, fire or shock each time he won a battle/siege...

That would be funnnnnnnnnnn.................


(and maybe 5% each time he lost)
(and it would help minors just a little)

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Greven


Maybe when come to cavalry, but infantry which was the centrepoint he imported the latest dutch methods of waging war and training troops.

And I still believe than Le Tellier's and Louvois' work was more important for the French Army, than it going from point A to B fighting battles. But in some sense of course experience, tactics and training is different sequences of the same process.

/Greven

This is dead right. Expereince counted for little while peacetime drills were critical. The tactical doctriens used by leaders were crucial.

The key in battle was manuevering as a unit, and that is literally parade ground stuff, and how effieciently you could load your weapons, again pure drill. A lot of the things that make troops better from experience today: finding cover, firing back (rarerer than you think), knowing how to hear incoming artillery and a host of other things that relate to individual initiative are meanignless in an era when you are bunched in a formation with a sergeat using a halberd to push your unit forward and maintain order.

I also posted this comment in the wish list- modern troops get better because in most battles only 15-30% of troops under fire become casualties. The the early modern age the troops under fire- at the point of attack- would absorb 50-70% losses and thus most of your "veterans" are corpses.

 

[unmerged(2970)]

Greven, thanks! That explains a lot. Should be interesting. From the diversification of armies by troop quality - a new variable will enter into calculation of the battle's outcome?