Exactly. Military lessons are learned from defeats, not walkover victories.
Paradox, what you did with result of battles in patch 1.11?
- Thread starter dm99
- Start date
-
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.
Exactly. Military lessons are learned from defeats, not walkover victories.
I do wish there was a way to get solid MT from something other than carpet-sieging provinces you don't need or want in a war...
Carpet sieging gives enough bonuses!
Carpet sieging gives enough bonuses!
How do you define walkover though? I mean of course a stack-wipe of someone without morale, or the equivalent of a police action shouldn't give tradition, but if you take out your main army for a pitched battle, there should be some tradition gain - these things don't happen that often.
Especially when you compare the flat 1% tradition gain from sieges, it seems a bit too much if you take half your standing military into battle, overwhelmingly defeat someone and learn nothing, but if you stand in front of a castle for a year, you suddenly learn a lot.
I agree with the gist of the changes, but the tradition tweaks seem like overkill (pun not intended).
Balance is more important than logical consistency, especially when playing multiplayer.
I'm pretty sure military traditions are in the game to model the fact that if you fight a lot, you become good at fighting. I don't see how any of these changes are terribly important for balancing - any choice would allow someone to get an advantage.
I think my point is that the current setup emphasizes the rule that you learn from adversity and mistakes. That's great and I agree, but there's no denying that you also learn from practice. Even target practice against rebels. I'm sure Hannibal learned something when he stackwiped the Romans at Cannae.
Hmmm, perhaps ideas, discipline and other modifiers should come into play when deciding AT gain from battles?
"Walkovers" aren't supposed to provide large gain to AT, but maybe winning against a more powerful force in terms of quality, or in an even force during a long battle, should provide bonus AT? I'll need to agree that practice does help, atm the bonus isn't too bad, but it could use more variation during important battles where no side had a clear superiority from the start. Meanwhile the siege bonus is ridiculous, so maybe buff the gain from battles for both sides (Especially when most of the countries' armies are involved) and nerf the one from siege?
Dictionary? Dictionaries generally are about the meaning of words, not terms like this. I have searched on the internet and the dictionaries I own, but no, nothing. That said, I must also point out dictionaries would differ from language to language, there are words with synonymous and meanings radically different in different languages.
That said: Link to wikipedia; That's the closest thing we can get to a "dictionary" with the meaning to Military tradition, and nowhere does it affirm that you are correct in that "military tradition" is "tactics". The closest thing that the wikipedia article mentions is possibly what we can call the morale bonus.
Small but nice? I've suffered stackwipes with 3-4 tech advantage because I was careless and allowed an enemy to engage my (Numerically superior) army with their godly general. This happened today, mind you.
Oh, pardon. I did not know you were a dev and responsible for telling us poor players what terms and events in the game means with such assertiveness.
Hmm, on a more serious tone: No. AFAIK that's an abstraction, which is something that Devs have said they do to several things in the game. I believe that a decent system for prisioners would require a lot more coding, so if I am correct it's probably not on the agenda for EUIV.
Have you, perhaps, ever disbanded a regiment? Did you notice the manpower does not go back to your pool? Are we going to assume that your disbanded regiment simply disappears from the face of Earth, leaving no trace of their existence behind them?
"Walkovers" aren't supposed to provide large gain to AT, but maybe winning against a more powerful force in terms of quality, or in an even force during a long battle, should provide bonus AT? I'll need to agree that practice does help, atm the bonus isn't too bad, but it could use more variation during important battles where no side had a clear superiority from the start. Meanwhile the siege bonus is ridiculous, so maybe buff the gain from battles for both sides (Especially when most of the countries' armies are involved) and nerf the one from siege?
Tell me, why do you multiply entities beyond necessity. Very simple expression "military tradition", the value can be found in the dictionary and it will be close to what it means in game. Little morality, its a little faster recovery, a little faster recovery of manpower and a little faster siege. And military leaders.
Dictionary? Dictionaries generally are about the meaning of words, not terms like this. I have searched on the internet and the dictionaries I own, but no, nothing. That said, I must also point out dictionaries would differ from language to language, there are words with synonymous and meanings radically different in different languages.
That said: Link to wikipedia; That's the closest thing we can get to a "dictionary" with the meaning to Military tradition, and nowhere does it affirm that you are correct in that "military tradition" is "tactics". The closest thing that the wikipedia article mentions is possibly what we can call the morale bonus.
Small but nice? I've suffered stackwipes with 3-4 tech advantage because I was careless and allowed an enemy to engage my (Numerically superior) army with their godly general. This happened today, mind you.
And now the answer to your question - in the game world is simple, no one survives. All died. Sad but true
Oh, pardon. I did not know you were a dev and responsible for telling us poor players what terms and events in the game means with such assertiveness.
Hmm, on a more serious tone: No. AFAIK that's an abstraction, which is something that Devs have said they do to several things in the game. I believe that a decent system for prisioners would require a lot more coding, so if I am correct it's probably not on the agenda for EUIV.
Have you, perhaps, ever disbanded a regiment? Did you notice the manpower does not go back to your pool? Are we going to assume that your disbanded regiment simply disappears from the face of Earth, leaving no trace of their existence behind them?
Last edited:
TBH, the only reason I think that manpower doesn't go back to the pool if you disband a unit (in your own land, even) is to prevent teleportation of men by just rebuilding the unit elsewhere (in a faster time than it'd take to travel).
And also because otherwise it'd be possible to use units as some kind of "manpower bank", AFAIK.
Apparently the best lessons are learned via defeats against rebels...
Want to farm Miltrad? Attack rebel stack, wait 6 days, retreat. easy 5 miltrad. Somebody forgot to make the changes apply to rebels as well. Tisk tisk =P
Best part is, you dont lose prestige against rebels.
You just ensured that in the next patch there will be nothing gained from fighting rebels.
Why is MT even a thing? It's very weird to have a mechanic like this where you seek out certain types of battles to bump up a value to make your armies stronger later.
Like okay I can understand wanting some metric to give a militarist nation stronger generals vs others, having some way to measure this, but getting it from battles / sieges doesn't seem like the best way. It's really awkward to interface with. Having it come from ideas and advisors is all well and good, but then that seems a bit limited in scope (you got it or you don't).
It seems like one of those things where your nation should have a set of "traditions" that you can shift the focus on, making your nation better or worse at various aspects of the game:
Army Tradition
Naval Tradition
Trade Tradition (replaces Global Trade Power / Mercantilism)
Diplomatic Tradition (replaces Reputation)
Production Tradition (reworking Goods Produced)
So you can choose to focus on say two of these, making them increase over time, but then the other three decay. So they can never all be good, though you could use ideas & difficult event choices to select between them. You can focus your nation at raising and educating a gifted warrior caste, but if you do then you'll miss out on a skilled merchant class, and vice-versa.
Could be even more of these... Religious Tradition (missionary chance / tolerance mods), Colonial Tradition (colony growth rates / tarrifs / surviving native attacks), Spy Tradition (espionage offense & defense, perhaps unlocking espionage options in place of the idea set), tons more possibilities.
Like okay I can understand wanting some metric to give a militarist nation stronger generals vs others, having some way to measure this, but getting it from battles / sieges doesn't seem like the best way. It's really awkward to interface with. Having it come from ideas and advisors is all well and good, but then that seems a bit limited in scope (you got it or you don't).
It seems like one of those things where your nation should have a set of "traditions" that you can shift the focus on, making your nation better or worse at various aspects of the game:
Army Tradition
Naval Tradition
Trade Tradition (replaces Global Trade Power / Mercantilism)
Diplomatic Tradition (replaces Reputation)
Production Tradition (reworking Goods Produced)
So you can choose to focus on say two of these, making them increase over time, but then the other three decay. So they can never all be good, though you could use ideas & difficult event choices to select between them. You can focus your nation at raising and educating a gifted warrior caste, but if you do then you'll miss out on a skilled merchant class, and vice-versa.
Could be even more of these... Religious Tradition (missionary chance / tolerance mods), Colonial Tradition (colony growth rates / tarrifs / surviving native attacks), Spy Tradition (espionage offense & defense, perhaps unlocking espionage options in place of the idea set), tons more possibilities.
IMO the point is that if you fight a lot for a few decades you have an edge over someone whose armies haven't seen battle in generations. That seems to be pretty much how it is – while getting it to 100 may need special effort, just fighting wars will keep you somewhere on the better side of 50.
Part of EU4s problem is that there are way too many modifiers that affect the same thing. It makes the game needlessly complex to balance, but not complex to play since 'get every modifier as high as possible' is pretty much the best way to play and 'win'.
I get that. Thing is, it doesn't work that way outside of battles. You don't get better at trading by having merchants trade more often in more competitive nodes, you don't get better at colonizing by settling provinces with appropriately-challenging natives, and you don't get better at diplomacy by building relations with the proper target nations. Why does only this one thing in the entire game function in this manner? It's awkward to learn and awkward to use.
Wow. Now the position of Paradox is determined. Ie military tradition in the game - a tradition of losers. Let it be so. Is well that in real life it's all different and it is practically impossible to learn how to win if you constantly losing. For example, can one learn how to make something a good if make it a bad. But in the game everything is possible :happy:.
It's much more are explained. Ie after all the main thing is the multiplayer.
So all is well, all is as it should be. But one question worries me: if the lesson is always retrieves only loser, why at the siege of fortress military traditions goes to the winner
?
Why should every mechanic be constructed similarly to other mechanics?
That's your opinion, and I have to say I don't see where you're coming from. I think it's one of the more transparent mechanics in the game, and it's straightforward to manage. The latest patches have made it a bit too hard, IMO, to keep tradition high if you don't take have tradition-boosting ideas, but the mechanic basically does a good job of motivating the player to get a little aggressive and engage with his neighbors rather than just cooling his heels for decades at a time.
You can tell about this to Peter the Great (first Russian emperor, battle of Narva) and Gustav II Adolf (king of Sweden, battle of Vittsjö).
Also, from perspective of game balance, it is good to give more AT to the loser, or you can easily roflstomp anything.
You just very, very unlucky. :huh: My condolences. Are you sure that this is due to the superiority in the AT. In my experience with such a difference in technology one can lead the battle without the general.
You did not like my use in relation to the military traditions the word tactics. Sorry but it's simple: the tactics allow win the battle, the strategy - the war.
Tactics - the morale, the discipline, the units, their capabilities and the leader. Strategy - the economy, the manpower, the force limit, maneuvers and logistics. The game has no parameters that could affect the strategy. Strategy is determined by the algorithm of the AI, or by the player who stubbornly will do everything their own way.
I would do it with pleasure, but alas, they do not attend this forum.
OopsI will not get involved in historical debates, but I can say in the context of this theme your example is very bad.
May be after the defeat the morale of the troops so dramatically improved that they began defeat all in a row? But this is what increasing to military tradition gives for the loser in the game.
Or there was carried out military reform, that every player does regularly by choosing a new level of technology?
Why look what corresponds to the artificial parameter that is unparalleled in the reality and which is designed exclusively for adjusting the balance in multiplayer. Would call this by another word and all issues would have disappeared. I wonder what would be said adherents of military traditions from the real life when they learned that their tradition was founded in defeats. :rofl:
And about balance: try now to beat France in a single game.
Last edited:
+prestige/year actually not being a complete trash idea is a good thing.
Not sure about the AT things but one has never farmed AT efficiently by solo fighting enemy stacks anyways (except when you're extremely small)
Not sure about the AT things but one has never farmed AT efficiently by solo fighting enemy stacks anyways (except when you're extremely small)