There is a proverb that fools learn from their mistakes, and smart from others. If you will live long enough, you will notice that no one learns from mistakes, especially from its own. Much more and more often one can learn from the successes.
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.
There is a proverb that fools learn from their mistakes, and smart from others. If you will live long enough, you will notice that no one learns from mistakes, especially from its own. Much more and more often one can learn from the successes.
After some initial hesitance, I actually like the change now having played with it for a little bit. It makes prestige and tradition more valuable, and subsequently the traditions/ideas/policies/etc. that increase them are now more valuable. Prestige especially was pretty easy to keep maxed-out previously.
Yes, it is. Bad rolls + 6 shock enemy general can kill you, just like it can kill other countries. Mind you, 4 tech difference is nothing if the techs themselves do not provide any significant modifiers. i.e. Military tactics. I don't remember if mine did, but eh.
That was not due to the difference between AT, given that my own was pretty high, however a good general can and will make a huge difference.
With regards to Military Tradition: That was not what you said at all. You specifically said that the real term was a synonymous of tactics, which was completely wrong.
And tactics is NOT "morale" or anything like that, those are pretty much EUIV terms, tactics in EUIV are probably meant to represent things like the Tercio and Line formations. You are, however, correct in that tactics would be focused in the short-term (A battle) whislt the strategy would revolve around the long-term benefits (Winning the war).
Once again: Are you a dev? Does technology represent all kinds of military reform now?
The game does not properly model the influence that certain minds (Generals) can have on the military of a state. Yes, Technology is meant to mimic certain military developments (Technological or theorical) from real life, however without a good leader an army would be much like a headless chicken. See my earlier example of pre-Jena Prussia, which had grown outdated and whose leaders were overconfident and incompetent.
I don't know, did you intend to word that as a challenge? I'm fairly sure that most of the players can do that with great ease.
Not to stray off-topic there, but being incapable of learning not to repeat your own mistakes would not be representative of someone being smart, that's called pride, more specifically the incapacity to recognize one's own faults and errors. A truly wise person would learn from both their own, and other's, mistakes. Successes can lead you to grow overconfident and arrogant, failures do not and encourage you to improve and achieve perfection.
----
And given that you seem unwilling to see anything other than your own opinion on the matter and have said that you do not want a historical argument - in spite of everything you have said so far! -, I will not answer to further posts from you, we can just agree to disagree and end it here between the two of us. Have a good night.
Funny that you gain tradition by failing. Maybe losing in a siege should give +1 tradition instead of winning one? Maybe country Losing a major war should gain +20 military tradition in the peace deal? Maybe nations with poor ruler(0/0/0) get reduced tech cost? Maybe nation that gets embargoed gets additional merchant, because you learn and adapt in adversity?
I can see how this make sense gameplay-balance-wise. But really otherwise it is just BS.
I can see how this make sense gameplay-balance-wise. But really otherwise it is just BS.
Change the name from tradition to 'Preparedness' or 'Readiness' or something. I solved your problem.
The name is extremely bad, you actually should loose tradition on a heavy defeat 
I mean all of your experienced troops and probably generals are killed. So whose tradition it is?
In the extremely unlikely event that some survived people learned something usually heavy defeats results in lowered morale not higher morale as a result of gained tradition. So the effect behaves totally counter intuitively to the name.
It could be called revanchism then it would make at least a bit of sense, but how then siege does increase this "tradition" thing. This all poorly thought and convoluted if it's balancing factor then loosing a siege should provide a bonus, if it's military tradition like an military experience then winning a battle should provide bigger gain. Tsk, tsk Paradox indeed dropped the ball with this "tradition" thing.
And indeed without carpet sieges it's extremely hard to gain it. If your constantly loosing high gain rate you are basically have no military to fight another day, if you are winning you just don't get it enough to keep at high level. So right now anything that gives tradition or reduces decay is seriously OP.
I mean all of your experienced troops and probably generals are killed. So whose tradition it is?In the extremely unlikely event that some survived people learned something usually heavy defeats results in lowered morale not higher morale as a result of gained tradition. So the effect behaves totally counter intuitively to the name.
It could be called revanchism then it would make at least a bit of sense, but how then siege does increase this "tradition" thing. This all poorly thought and convoluted if it's balancing factor then loosing a siege should provide a bonus, if it's military tradition like an military experience then winning a battle should provide bigger gain. Tsk, tsk Paradox indeed dropped the ball with this "tradition" thing.
And indeed without carpet sieges it's extremely hard to gain it. If your constantly loosing high gain rate you are basically have no military to fight another day, if you are winning you just don't get it enough to keep at high level. So right now anything that gives tradition or reduces decay is seriously OP.
How does heavy defeat increase your readiness?
Sure helped the Russians in dubba-dubba-too. So loser getting more, I'm fine with.
As a West Point graduate and former officer who studied military history, I'm sorry but you are simply wrong.
OTOH, the unrealistic system of tradition and the rest of it with die rolls is just a fantasy in the first place. So inverting numbers and gains is an exercise best left to the fantasy experts anyway. I would assume that they somehow gather metrics and other information that goes into their decisions and either way, it hardly matters. Tradition can still be gamed in this game as with most anything else.
As some one mentioned defeat at Narva in game terms resulted in newer Military Techs and not that troops started to fight better for some reason. How did Poltava help Swedes using this logic kind of logic?
No defeats does not lead to better armies, but victories does.
Moreover I am OK if MT is some kind of balancing mechanism, just think it as an another word. But why did sieges help the attacker then?
You might think of it as getting rid of the deadwood and outdated doctrines/equipment that built up in the past. Think of the outbreak of most wars, where there were plenty of terrible generals and doctrines that got swept away as they were determined to be inferior (consider all the incompetent generals on both sides of the American Civil War early on, as an example). If they manage to succeed despite their mistakes, then they have less incentive to get rid of those incompetent commanders. After all, one of the most important results of AT is its effect on newly recruited generals; a nation in crisis is more willing to allow some competent lesser noble (or maybe even...gasp...a commoner) to rise in rank rather than some idiot cousin of the king. Likewise for the junior officers, who aren't represented but who do things like rally the troops, carry out orders, etc.
So in this conception, a high military tradition is one that encourages innovation, and is more open to talented commanders getting promoted on merit and a low tolerance for corruption. A low military tradition is more hidebound, and tends to rely strictly on patronage/connections for its officer corps, with corruption being rampant (always a problem with armies in this period; why pay to maintain 100 soldiers, when you can keep only 50, falsify the forms, and then keep the extra 50-men worth of pay for yourself? or even give the soldiers lousy food, and keep the savings for yourself?). It would make sense why a successful army would be more prone to these sorts of things (why fix what isn't broken?), while a losing army would be more likely to react by shaking things up, cracking down on corruption, and firing the biggest incompetents. A victory would still give some benefits to tradition (as the most egregious incompetents might run afoul of the commander and get canned), but much less than an army in flux.
As for sieges? The besieged army generally surrenders (and, especially early in the period, many of the prisoners would switch sides) or is wiped out, and thus the home country doesn't really get to absorb any lessons they might have learned. In contrast, even the equivalent of a stackwipe in-game would probably leave most of the defeated army alive, just shattered beyond recovery. Various officers would survive, and probably be used to help reconstitute the rebuilt army.
So in this conception, a high military tradition is one that encourages innovation, and is more open to talented commanders getting promoted on merit and a low tolerance for corruption. A low military tradition is more hidebound, and tends to rely strictly on patronage/connections for its officer corps, with corruption being rampant (always a problem with armies in this period; why pay to maintain 100 soldiers, when you can keep only 50, falsify the forms, and then keep the extra 50-men worth of pay for yourself? or even give the soldiers lousy food, and keep the savings for yourself?). It would make sense why a successful army would be more prone to these sorts of things (why fix what isn't broken?), while a losing army would be more likely to react by shaking things up, cracking down on corruption, and firing the biggest incompetents. A victory would still give some benefits to tradition (as the most egregious incompetents might run afoul of the commander and get canned), but much less than an army in flux.
As for sieges? The besieged army generally surrenders (and, especially early in the period, many of the prisoners would switch sides) or is wiped out, and thus the home country doesn't really get to absorb any lessons they might have learned. In contrast, even the equivalent of a stackwipe in-game would probably leave most of the defeated army alive, just shattered beyond recovery. Various officers would survive, and probably be used to help reconstitute the rebuilt army.