Relative Merits of the Different Military Ideas

[Phanixis]

I am new to EU4 and I am having extreme difficult judging the various military ideas. I just don't understand what benefits like +1 leader shock and +5 discipline actually mean. Some, like quality ideas which just states things fight 10% better I can understand, but the benefits of other ideas are rather obfuscated.

Any suggestions regarding which military ideas I should take? Are there any lemons I should avoid?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Xeorm]

First: if you have any specific questions on mechanics, feel free to ask. You can also check the wikiMy suggestion on which to take would be defensive -> quantity (and then quality if you want a third one). Do take plutocracy first though if you have the option (You're a republic that isn't a noble republic) They're always good choices, and good for anyone who doesn't know the mechanics enough to make a real, informed decision. I'd try and avoid aristocracy, it's not a very good tree.

To explain the mechanics you gave: +1 leader shock gives your generals and conquistadors +1 to their shock value, in addition to the random amount they would normally roll based on your army tradition when you first make the general. Pretty useful, leaders can be amazing.

Discipline is a percentage that increases the damage done during battle, and also decreases the damage you take. It's an amazing stat to have. Combat ability by contrast only increases the damage that particular brand of unit does.

 

[lordelenath]

Defensive > Offensive > Quality would be my advice. I seldom take Quantity, proper mercenary management keeps my manpower in shape until I start snowballing, once that happens manpower doesn't matter anymore (mostly). Although it's not a military ideaset, one of the best improvements to your military prowess is the Innovative admin idea. Army tradition is the single most important value to determine the quality of your armies, keeping it as high as possible is very powerful. The -2% decay helps a lot with that, especially coupled with some other +army tradition (like Defensive). It makes sure you will never suffer bad generals and those are very important in battles.

 

[Anthropoid]

In one play through (as France, I only seem to play as France) I got to #1 in score and stayed there through first quarter of the 16th century and I didn't even take any military ideas: Diplo - Administrative - Economic if memory serves. Tis true, facing Austrian stacks was quite perilous, but by only fighting them on the defensive and in mountains (and ideally with one tech group ahead) I could hold my own against them.

I think the real question that never seems to get asked is: given so much of the game depends on economic/diplomatic abstractions--and moreover that many of the "non-military" ideas include effects on warfare (naval and land)--are military ideas really that useful given that unbridled conquest without sufficient diplomatic power will eventually be met with coalition headaches?

I still have not played nearly enough, but I'm leaning toward: the non-military idea groups are overall 'better.'

 

[timujin]

it depends upon what is it you need...
for example
offensive is good when you have many weaker neighbors. it will allow you to win wars faster and fight more wars same tome due to:
more force-limits,
more manpower,
more dmg done due to +1 fire & +1 shock +10% discipline
faster armies due to +1 maneuverability
forced march

defensive is good if you have 1 or 2 very strong enemies that you might lose a war to
it will make your armies much more resilient and you will be able to get bigger doom stack then your enemy with less attrition (due to improved foraging).

i hadn't actually had much experience with other ideas

quantity seems fitting a nation that has large income and can support more units then its current force-limit.
quality seems fitting the opposite case, when you have less units then the your force-limit but can't afford more.

aristocrat seems fitting a nation that does not mainly engage in war (colonizer/ developer) and designed to demotivate others attacking it.
i don't know if that really scale well in-game, so i would avoid it unless looking to experiment.

 

[Xeorm]

In one play through (as France, I only seem to play as France) I got to #1 in score and stayed there through first quarter of the 16th century and I didn't even take any military ideas: Diplo - Administrative - Economic if memory serves. Tis true, facing Austrian stacks was quite perilous, but by only fighting them on the defensive and in mountains (and ideally with one tech group ahead) I could hold my own against them.

I think the real question that never seems to get asked is: given so much of the game depends on economic/diplomatic abstractions--and moreover that many of the "non-military" ideas include effects on warfare (naval and land)--are military ideas really that useful given that unbridled conquest without sufficient diplomatic power will eventually be met with coalition headaches?

I still have not played nearly enough, but I'm leaning toward: the non-military idea groups are overall 'better.'

Well, what else are you going to spend all those military points on? Few idea groups anyway allow you to do something completely new anyway. Exploration gives you colonists and conquistadors/explorers, and religious might allow you to convert some provinces you might otherwise not, but the rest give you the capability to do stuff better. Quality gives you better troops and you might not need that if you're already winning, but quantity gives you quite a bit of money by making troops cost less, while at the same time using otherwise "useless" points. Hard to beat that with economic ideas, given that I'd much prefer to spend admin points on coring if I can.

Plus, you're playing as France. You start out with the strongest nation in the game, so you likely don't need ideas in order to compete. But for every other nation you will.

 

[lordelenath]

In one play through (as France, I only seem to play as France) I got to #1 in score and stayed there through first quarter of the 16th century and I didn't even take any military ideas: Diplo - Administrative - Economic if memory serves. Tis true, facing Austrian stacks was quite perilous, but by only fighting them on the defensive and in mountains (and ideally with one tech group ahead) I could hold my own against them.

I think the real question that never seems to get asked is: given so much of the game depends on economic/diplomatic abstractions--and moreover that many of the "non-military" ideas include effects on warfare (naval and land)--are military ideas really that useful given that unbridled conquest without sufficient diplomatic power will eventually be met with coalition headaches?

I still have not played nearly enough, but I'm leaning toward: the non-military idea groups are overall 'better.'

I think you're biased because you're playing France. Obviously there's a point for every (player lead) nation when most ideas become irrelevant in a sense of: you don't need them to succeed. The bigger you start, the faster ideas become less important. If you're playing small nations, in the early game it makes a huge difference which ideas you pick, especially military. In my experience, the ideas you need the least are those that give you money - they're nice, but they're not crucial. Diplomatic relations, diplomats, faster relations decay, cheaper coring and more military punching power are much more helpful.

Picking the right ideas (and the right strategy, as well as a general understanding of game mechanics) can enable you to win even if your enemies seem a lot more powerful. In my The Knights Hospitaller game I had to fight a coalition of Spain, France and the HRE (which had a fully formed Russia as PU junior) plus loads of minors roughly the last century (I really wanted to finish a Mare Nostrum, which means you have to piss up everybody ...). I was outnumbered about 10-1 in the first of those, but the combination of the right idea sets to push my military with the prowess of the alps as a defensive battleground gave me the means to win. I wouldn't have stood a chance in hell without the might of Defensive/Offensive/Quality/Innovative.

 

[Jomini]

In general, discipline helps you kill the enemy, morale helps you win battles, and better general stats help out in combat (fire/shock), while moving armies around (maneuver), and while sieging (siege). Bonuses to manpower increase how many replacement troops your country produces (somewhat) and how much your total manpower pool is. Bonuses to manpower recovery increases how fast you restock the manpower pool, but not your total manpower. Individual combat modifiers only apply for individual troop types.

So what is most important? Well a lot of that depends on your playstyle and what you are doing. The offensive group is extremely useful for running down beaten AIs and killing off their armies. It is also very useful for getting your army away from certain death or leading the AI on a chase through low supply deserts. Defensive's bonus attrition is very nice if you are a big sprawling empire that can let the AI siege for a while before you go deal with that front - however it is almost useless against someone like the Russians who just replace all their manpower regardless. Plutocratic's -10% tech costs are really, really nice; but aristo can be better for the diplomat and shock bonus.

 

[TheBloke]

At the moment I always take Defensive as my first Mil Idea, which is usually my second Idea overall.

I'm only playing with big blobs at the moment, so recently I've not taken a second Mil idea at all.

But taking Defensive first is definitely a reasonably good general purpose strategy, and that's for one reason alone: +25% Morale remains one of the single best military bonuses around. Morale is really, really important. It wins battles, and wins wars. Some of the other Ideas are not bad too (especially yearly Army Tradition, reduced maintenance and increased reinforce.) But without morale I'd not take this group that often; with 25% morale, I basically always take it.

I've not played enough nations, and no small nations, to know all the ins and outs for different strategies and play styles. But I can say with confidence that +25% morale is always a huge benefit.

And the AI takes this group a lot. So if you don't take it you're might well find yourself losing battles due to low morale rather more than you would like, especially in early game.

For a lot more detailed discussion on all the Idea groups, including the Mils, check out this great thread: The most useless and best idea.

 

[Phanixis]

Thanks for all the advice.

By the way I have to agree with the last two posters. The reason I asked about military ideas in the first place is because I have a ton of military points I can't do anything with. The military tech repeatedly pushes past the point cap so its not even like I can advanced my core tech levels. Meanwhile my diplomatic points are all tied up in colonization because I am playing England, and the admin points are just tight in general.

One other thought regarding military tech. I noticed quality ideas also enhance the navy. As England, this might be more advantageous than normal. Are quality ideas better when you are running a naval power?

 

[Avernite]

One other thought regarding military tech. I noticed quality ideas also enhance the navy. As England, this might be more advantageous than normal. Are quality ideas better when you are running a naval power?

Yes. Obviously

Quality and Quantity have additional use for naval powers that offensive and defensive (mostly) lack. Defensive still has the useful property that you can actually ship troops to your isolated naval base before it gets occupied (both higher defensiveness against sieges, and higher morale against assaults)... but for a naval power, quality is probably nr. 1, as it still helps your land military but also your navy (naval is still the best idea set for improving your navy, of course).

 

[TheBloke]

Despite usually playing as a huge naval power - England/Great Britain - I have yet to ever take any Idea Group that buffs the navy.

I keep thinking about it. My main reason would be not for the military benefits, but rather that boosting Naval Tradition also helps boost trade steering. Of course Trade is the number one trade group. But if you think you do want a powerful navy for military reasons, it's also worth remembering that anything that boosts NT is going to benefit your trade steering as well, helping you along the way to being a dominant trade power.

 

[Avernite]

Despite usually playing as a huge naval power - England/Great Britain - I have yet to ever take any Idea Group that buffs the navy.

I keep thinking about it. My main reason would be not for the military benefits, but rather that boosting Naval Tradition also helps boost trade steering. Of course Trade is the number one trade group. But if you think you do want a powerful navy for military reasons, it's also worth remembering that anything that boosts NT is going to benefit your trade steering as well, helping you along the way to being a dominant trade power.

naval gives higher navy forcelmits, i.e., more light ships!

 

[Dustman]

Defensive, Quality and Quantity go first, mainly because defensive wars are cheaper in manpower and gold.

Defensive is great, especially combined with a title of Defender of the Faith. Plus troops are cheaper, and sieges are quicker.

Quality is well rounded idea group helping both armies and navies, giving highest improvement in damage dealing potential as of patch 1.3. Plus, troops and ships recover morale faster, leading to more battles fought and generally more battles won.

Quantity is quite underestimated. While Offensive provides better leaders and slightly improves army efficiency, Quantity gives bigger and cheaper armies and cheaper navies. Combined with some national ideas, for example Russian or Swedish, armies become of enormous size, and reliance on mercenaries decreases. State like Aragon benefit from Quantity a lot. Ability to repel amphibious assaults or defend a mountain province with bigger force with large number of cannons while running a healthy surplus of ducats is hard to underestimate. Bigger army, easier to fight strong or numerous opponents, more money for advisers.

Best part of Offensive is Forced March, followed by Discipline bonus. For a sizable country with good income it is better than Quantity, since army cost is less of a problem, while land limits increases are almost the same, and manpower bonus is just slightly worse.

 

[trojan1234]

For small nation like Brunswick or Tuscany, I took Offensive as the second (1st in mil tech).

It increases the quality by leader skills, discipline, and the FORCED MARCH. It also increases forcelimit and manpower. The forced march would give you 2,3 days in which you can escape your 10-15k army from giant dead stack or you can hit and run scattered enemy sieging armies before they gathered up. If you properly utilize the forced march, it will save tons of manpower and money more than quantity.

 

[Incompetent]

Despite usually playing as a huge naval power - England/Great Britain - I have yet to ever take any Idea Group that buffs the navy.

As England you don't need to, because you can secure naval dominance without it. But Naval is definitely worth considering - not only is it huge buff to your navy (including allowing you to have considerably more light ships for the same price), it also unlocks several decisions, including the wonderful Thalassocracy.

 

[AtomicTank]

Well, what else are you going to spend all those military points on?

Of course, not everyone is France with great military rulers. If I have a young king with one outsized ability (2-5-1 or 5-2-1), I tend to drift to idea groups that use those points. I think sometimes you have to work with your strength.

 

[Anthropoid]

True, it is good to be Fwench

 

[Pandadan]

Discipline is a percentage that increases the damage done during battle, and also decreases the damage you take. It's an amazing stat to have. Combat ability by contrast only increases the damage that particular brand of unit does.

Discipline increases damage done; Tactics decreases damage taken.

naval gives higher navy forcelmits, i.e., more light ships!

Every Merchant you have increases naval forcelimits by 5, so Trade is actually pretty good for the navy.

 

[Yoshijoe]

I find that Quantity would only be useful for the start of the game/you're a small nation throughout the game. As soon as you get a decent cash flow, half of the idea group becomes pretty useless. As soon as your MP is high enough, even if you wouldn't have the Quantity boni, all but 2 ideas are still useful (maintenance, which saves you soooooo much more money then the unit formation costs and forcelimits expansion).

Aristocratic is decent, more so if you're not Western and field more cavalry, but I never take it since the other 3 I just like more.

Defensive is usually my second idea, 1st mil idea, it's just a great mix of ideas that mostly help until the end.

Offensive is my second mil idea, forced march is a godsend in some wars and usually I'm spending a lot of mil points on rerolling leaders, this helps a lot! A discipline boost is also never bad.

Quality is an idea I haven't taken in a long while. Usually I'm already pretty much the #1 power and ideas of the admin and diplo tree are just more useful for the things I want, whether it's a colonist, dip rep, nice CB's,...

But that's my take, I'd say give them all a try and see where they get you and then make your own strategy, there isn't just one strategy to winning wars.