My Top Three

[unmerged(994)]

There is just a little problem, IMHO. While AI countries will implement different policies in a historical way (shifting focus from trade to warfare, and from naval to ground), human players would be more likely to focalise on a single area, to get a large advantage in the most critical point and to crush every enemy, gainig resources that will allow them to catch the others in other areas. An example: a landlocked country with a bunch of leaders (say, Russia, Austria, Poland or even Prussia/Brandenburg) will develop a juggernaught army, crush the neighbours and grab a lot of wealth in the hand of a decent player, while the AI will probably not be so able to exploit this strategy.

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Loewefuchs
There is just a little problem, IMHO.

It is because you do not know how we have constructed the sliders. Unfortenantley I do not want to go into details on the domestic policy system. I want it playtested first...

/Greven

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Greven et al.

Here's the thing. Warfare in the late 18th C. consisted of men standing line to line and bearing their chests for enemy bullets. The first army to break ranks, lost. (The morale element in EU 1 is absolutly fantastic in accounting for this.)

The English Army was such a titan at the end of the 18th C. because their troops were trained never, and I mean never-- fire and hell stone for the first squad to run--broke ranks. They bore their chest and died. But the army was successful. That was war and professional armies who had experienced this psychological torture had a crucial advantage on the field of battle.

That's being completely ignored. That's a mistake. Armies with expierence should at least be given a morale bonus in battle. Mixing in new troops (green troops) should decrease this bonus.

It could be historical and balanced as all nations could work to cultivate expierenced troops. This could also limit the (unrealistic) size of armies currently expierenced in EU 1

 

[Sir James]

As noted above, British Guard battalions at Waterloo, with little or no experience of a real battle, stood their ground as well as anybody. Similarly, the average ranker in the BEF in 1914 had never been under fire, and neither had the generally equally solid German and French soldiers.

Training and morale are the things. A military tradition may contribute enormously to these things, but is not essential, and the actual quantity of battle experience of a given unit has, I think, little effect.

 

[unmerged(994)]

And we all said how well the battle-tested Iraqi republican Guards proved against the poor french recruits in Kafji.

 

[unmerged(1852)]

I like the idea of leaders getting experience, but not units. I think that's partially covered by having newly commissioned troops start out with no morale.

Andrew

 

[unmerged(3408)]

And we all said how well the battle-tested Iraqi republican Guards proved against the poor french recruits in Kafji.

Um, I really don't want to sound like one of those obnoxious patriots, but the Iraqis came up against American Marines in Kafji (Jan 1991), not french recruits. Let's keep the record straight.

Back to topic: I can understand the opposing viewpoints. And they are valid. One of the reason troops stood their ground was because of training. Giving leaders a bonus for experience is a good solution.

 

[unmerged(994)]

But leaders should get experience only in exceptional cases, as it would be very difficult for so conservative organisations as armies in EU period to adopt new views in a short time, and leaders experience means this: the ability to reorganize the troops in order to adopt new tactics, learned on the battlefield. Maybe the famous sliders should play a role also in the likeliness of this experience bonus.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by Petrus


Um, I really don't want to sound like one of those obnoxious patriots, but the Iraqis came up against American Marines in Kafji (Jan 1991), not french recruits.

That's easily fixed .. change Kafji for one of the umpteen places where it wasn't Americans doing the fighting, but other members of the 30-odd country coalition

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Ok, Dunkirk....

 

[Zagys]

Leaders should not gain experience. This would be far too easily abused by a player, starting wars just to create "Napoleons". Remember everyone, lets keep play balance in mind when thinking of new ideas.

 

[unmerged(1372)]

Leader XP

I don't think leaders should have experience points for battle... but I DO think that the generic leaders should improve over time... so instead of a 1/1/1 stat, say, after the same generic leader has been general for five years, make it 1/2/1, and after ten years 1/2/2, etc... If you combine an army, the best generic leader leads it, but you lose the other generic leader... just a thought.

The only thing would be that the generic leaders would have to die, eventually (randomly or not). Otherwise, you'd have generic leaders that had been alive for three-hundred years with a 6/6/6 (or higher) battlefied skill, and that would suck.

The Black Adder

 

[Spruce]

Hmmm,

you got a point, but I see it somewhat different.

There should be a progress in experience, due to the fact that a general is engaged in conflicts (=experience). Not by just stationing his army in a province.

You also should be able to build someting like an academy, where rookie generals should improve somewhat on their skills (not to the higher ranks).

IMO Paradox gives the values in EU due to the natural talent of the general. And that is a constant value (=cover the story with a historical sauce).

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Otherwise, you'd have generic leaders that had been alive for three-hundred years with a 6/6/6

Hmmm, alive for 300 years? Values are 6/6/6...? I'd say he made a pact with the devil.

 

[unmerged(1372)]

Generic Leaders Living Forever

Yeah, I agree with you, but right now in EU1, generic leaders don't die. They just stay the same unless you combine armies...

The Black Adder