Hello. Just wanted to say that there are some glaring things missing in this game that really need to be brought back if war is ever to be anything near as elegant as it was in Eu2. I'm all for spending time on non-essential features like missions and other bells and whistles, but this should take highest priority.
1). Bring back supply. In Eu2, you had to have a line of control extending from one of your own provinces to wherever your armies were, or else suffered an extra 10 max attrition. This opened up some interesting tactical opportunities for cutting off the enemy's supplies, and forced you to keep an eye on your own lines of communication.
2). Make cavalry relevant again, and bring back terrain combat modifiers for different unit types. In Eu2, cavalry was faster, and stronger in the early game, but also had some strong negative modifiers on hills, forests, and swamps(there weren't as many terrain types in Eu2 as in Eu4). However, on plains provs, they were super good in the early game, and still important later on, as you would get a +1 shock modifier if you had more cav than the enemy. You could use it as an independent force to kill off reinforcement armies as they appeared later in the game, or raid and pillage, though they were still quite vulnerable by that point fighting a regular inf army. Compare that to Eu4, where cav is maybe worth bothering about in the first 50 years, but doesn't actually do anything in its own right since it can only be attached to regular armies, but then after the early game is basically just a more expensive, less effective alternative to infantry. Yes, 1-2 units on the flanks can have some value, but beyond that, they're a completely pointless unit in their current form. In either case, there's nothing interesting to do with them.
3). Shattered Retreats. In Eu2, you didn't have these. Nor did you have the option of retreating your army all the way to whatever safe, cozy place in your empire you wanted to retreat to. No, if you lost a battle in Eu2, you had to go to a neighboring province, and then deal with the pursuing enemy. You had a few things on your side: 1). To follow you into your territory, they'd need to place covering detachments in order to maintain their line of supply(or else lose tons of troops to attrition), and 2). In Eu2, reinforcements were all managed by players raising new armies, rather than happening magically. So, in a retreat, you'd be able to meet with your reinforcement armies, while the enemy's army would weaken as it advanced further. Also, you didn't have wipeouts. If they followed you, they'd be able to kill more of your low morale troops, but the main benefit to them would be getting some extra battle warscore, unless they had a high maneuver leader, in which case you'd suffer more damage on retreats.
I know that this probably seems like a lot to manage to some people, but it has some nice advantages. War doesn't devolve into a series of ridiculous big battles where the loser retreats to halfway across their empire, allowing the winner to capture a fort or two before they return, rinse and repeat until one side is exhausted or overrun. Instead, you continue to grapple with the enemy, vying over supply lines, attempting to ambush their reinforcement armies, maneuver them into suffering more attrition, getting caught with the wrong unit type for the terrain, etc.
4). Forts. Believe it or not, the fort system in Eu2 was also better. You didn't need zones of control in that game, because of the need to maintain supply. You couldn't just barrel into the heart of the enemy country without maintaining your supply, or else your army would be gone in 6 months. But of course, since you don't have supply in Eu4, you have to instead have zones of control. There are some things about forts in Eu4 that are improvements, such as having to pay maintenance on them, but overall, it would be better to restore lines of supply, increase max attrition, and just get rid of zones of control.
5). The map. In Eu2, the main map mode was aesthetically pleasing, and useful during war. Borders were clear, and rivers ran along the borders of provs rather than intersecting them. How was this better? It made it very clear when a movement was going to entail a terrain penalty, and it did this without turning into a hideous spiderweb that you see on the simple terrain mapmode, where "rivers" are displayed all over the place where they don't actually exist, and some national borders don't even display properly on borders that also include river crossing penalties. Honestly, there's no benefit to having rivers intersect provinces. Just go back to the way it was, with a map that has clearly defined river crossings on all mapmodes.
6). The regiment system and combat width. In Eu2, you didn't have a regiment system, or combat width, and it worked rather well. Supply limitations prevented you from just putting it all into a big doomstack, or at least for keeping your forces in one for very long. A lot of the challenge was in getting your forces where they needed to be without taking attrition, and then efficiently bringing all that force to bear.
Reinforcement was all managed by the player raising new armies, rather than happening magically. The new armies had to be safely brought to the front, and could be vulnerable to swiping forces along the way. Because of this need to move reinforcements from your home territories, there was much more of a satisfying challenge to managing the logistics of an invasion in Eu2 than there is in Eu4.
I think this covers the main points. Eu4 has made a number of great improvements over the days of Eu2, but it is very unfortunate that it has also taken some serious steps backward. I submit these comments in the hopes that much needed attention will be drawn to these problems, and that the series will regain the tactically satisfying depth that it relinquished in the sequels to Eu2.
1). Bring back supply. In Eu2, you had to have a line of control extending from one of your own provinces to wherever your armies were, or else suffered an extra 10 max attrition. This opened up some interesting tactical opportunities for cutting off the enemy's supplies, and forced you to keep an eye on your own lines of communication.
2). Make cavalry relevant again, and bring back terrain combat modifiers for different unit types. In Eu2, cavalry was faster, and stronger in the early game, but also had some strong negative modifiers on hills, forests, and swamps(there weren't as many terrain types in Eu2 as in Eu4). However, on plains provs, they were super good in the early game, and still important later on, as you would get a +1 shock modifier if you had more cav than the enemy. You could use it as an independent force to kill off reinforcement armies as they appeared later in the game, or raid and pillage, though they were still quite vulnerable by that point fighting a regular inf army. Compare that to Eu4, where cav is maybe worth bothering about in the first 50 years, but doesn't actually do anything in its own right since it can only be attached to regular armies, but then after the early game is basically just a more expensive, less effective alternative to infantry. Yes, 1-2 units on the flanks can have some value, but beyond that, they're a completely pointless unit in their current form. In either case, there's nothing interesting to do with them.
3). Shattered Retreats. In Eu2, you didn't have these. Nor did you have the option of retreating your army all the way to whatever safe, cozy place in your empire you wanted to retreat to. No, if you lost a battle in Eu2, you had to go to a neighboring province, and then deal with the pursuing enemy. You had a few things on your side: 1). To follow you into your territory, they'd need to place covering detachments in order to maintain their line of supply(or else lose tons of troops to attrition), and 2). In Eu2, reinforcements were all managed by players raising new armies, rather than happening magically. So, in a retreat, you'd be able to meet with your reinforcement armies, while the enemy's army would weaken as it advanced further. Also, you didn't have wipeouts. If they followed you, they'd be able to kill more of your low morale troops, but the main benefit to them would be getting some extra battle warscore, unless they had a high maneuver leader, in which case you'd suffer more damage on retreats.
I know that this probably seems like a lot to manage to some people, but it has some nice advantages. War doesn't devolve into a series of ridiculous big battles where the loser retreats to halfway across their empire, allowing the winner to capture a fort or two before they return, rinse and repeat until one side is exhausted or overrun. Instead, you continue to grapple with the enemy, vying over supply lines, attempting to ambush their reinforcement armies, maneuver them into suffering more attrition, getting caught with the wrong unit type for the terrain, etc.
4). Forts. Believe it or not, the fort system in Eu2 was also better. You didn't need zones of control in that game, because of the need to maintain supply. You couldn't just barrel into the heart of the enemy country without maintaining your supply, or else your army would be gone in 6 months. But of course, since you don't have supply in Eu4, you have to instead have zones of control. There are some things about forts in Eu4 that are improvements, such as having to pay maintenance on them, but overall, it would be better to restore lines of supply, increase max attrition, and just get rid of zones of control.
5). The map. In Eu2, the main map mode was aesthetically pleasing, and useful during war. Borders were clear, and rivers ran along the borders of provs rather than intersecting them. How was this better? It made it very clear when a movement was going to entail a terrain penalty, and it did this without turning into a hideous spiderweb that you see on the simple terrain mapmode, where "rivers" are displayed all over the place where they don't actually exist, and some national borders don't even display properly on borders that also include river crossing penalties. Honestly, there's no benefit to having rivers intersect provinces. Just go back to the way it was, with a map that has clearly defined river crossings on all mapmodes.
6). The regiment system and combat width. In Eu2, you didn't have a regiment system, or combat width, and it worked rather well. Supply limitations prevented you from just putting it all into a big doomstack, or at least for keeping your forces in one for very long. A lot of the challenge was in getting your forces where they needed to be without taking attrition, and then efficiently bringing all that force to bear.
Reinforcement was all managed by the player raising new armies, rather than happening magically. The new armies had to be safely brought to the front, and could be vulnerable to swiping forces along the way. Because of this need to move reinforcements from your home territories, there was much more of a satisfying challenge to managing the logistics of an invasion in Eu2 than there is in Eu4.
I think this covers the main points. Eu4 has made a number of great improvements over the days of Eu2, but it is very unfortunate that it has also taken some serious steps backward. I submit these comments in the hopes that much needed attention will be drawn to these problems, and that the series will regain the tactically satisfying depth that it relinquished in the sequels to Eu2.
- 6
- 3
- 1
