The battle system was bugged for some time and it seemed many modifiers weren't working. That has been fixed though. Combat ability is a simple +damage modifier.
Relative Merits of the Different Military Ideas
- Thread starter Phanixis
- 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.
It got changed to +10% damage with 1.3 yes.
Plus, I agree with Hauptman on Plutocracy, it's a great first idea group if you are an eligible republic. The -10% tech cost is not the only good bonus from the tree, as you pointed out, but they also have hidden bonuses.
What are the eligible Republics anyway: Venice/Genoa/Friesland/Novgorod/The Hansa/Ulm/Aachen/Frankfurt.
All those countries are small states that are surrounded by ennemies and need to expand fast in the beginning to get the game rolling. The exception is Novgorod which is not a small state but still surrounded by ennemies (one in particular
) and also needs to expand fast. And the first idea of Plutocracy is not only +50% mercenaries, but also +6 forcelimits (for the smallest of those countries, it's more than double what they have in the beginning). And the event associated with it is +100% mercenaries, giving also + forcelimits. Most of them will also rely on trade so the merchant is more than likely to be useful. It also gives +5 naval forcelimits, before modifiers. For those that have access to a coastline, it's quite useful. Also, modifiers from national Ideas (Genoa, Friesland to Netherlands) or taking Naval ideas in the beginning (Venice), this adds even more forcelimits.
All in all, I would argue that Plutocracy is indeed the best first military group for those that can have it, as this is the group that goes the best with their starting situation.
Wow, I never really looked at this properly before, having never properly played a Republic. That's way better than Aristrocratic!
Not really a fair swap, there. -10 Mil Cost versus -10 ALL cost? Cavalry, Cavalry, Core Creation Cost (who the hell ever cares about that, besides maybe in multi-player?) versus Morale, Mercs, Efficiency.
As much as I hate losing wars, this makes me want to use Rev/Counter-Rev to republicanise myself just so I can get that group!
Last edited:
Yes it's clearly one of the main advantages of being a Republic. This balances the tedious Republican tradition mechanisms which gives only maluses while Legitimacy gives bonuses, and the latter is much more easier to manage.
So not all is good in the world of Republics
.
Yes it's clearly one of the main advantages of being a Republic. This balances the tedious Republican tradition mechanisms which gives only maluses while Legitimacy gives bonuses, and the latter is much more easier to manage.
So not all is good in the world of Republics
True, but isn't the Republican Tradition balanced by the ability to manage Monarch Stats?
The first thing that happened when I just tested converting myself to an Administrative Republic via losing a Rev/Counter Rev war was I was able to boost my leader from 3/6/5 to 4/6/6, the best I've ever had
I've not investigated Tradition at all yet to fully understand the downsides. But I did think that overall the Monarch Stats were meant to more than make people for tradition management?
Actually the biggest downside in my current games is losing HRE Emperor. That basically precludes me switching, after all the work I did to get emperor.
I think I'm definitely going to mod the HRE to allow a republican emperor.
Offensive is great because it gives you good generals and manpower, army force limit, forced march and discipline. All these are really great things, especially in the early game if you're an expanding small or midsize nation. It's always my first armyidea-pick. I think it's mainly the manpower and force limits bonus that makes it better than defensive. In the early game it makes it easier to bleed your enemys manpower dry.
Defensive would be my second pick. The moralebonus is really good, + 25% bonus is a lot, and the armytradition bonus also helps. The AI usually pick defensive as their first military idea, so expect to go up against armies with high moral. Just make sure your armies are twice the size, then it shouldnt be a problem.
Quality would be my third pick, it really gives all your troops an edge with better combat ability and 15% discipline on top of that.
Quantity and Aristocracy is a bit more dependant on the nation you play. They both have their uses, but it depends on the situation.
Defensive would be my second pick. The moralebonus is really good, + 25% bonus is a lot, and the armytradition bonus also helps. The AI usually pick defensive as their first military idea, so expect to go up against armies with high moral. Just make sure your armies are twice the size, then it shouldnt be a problem.
Quality would be my third pick, it really gives all your troops an edge with better combat ability and 15% discipline on top of that.
Quantity and Aristocracy is a bit more dependant on the nation you play. They both have their uses, but it depends on the situation.
It's difficult to picture the college of HRE electors picking a mere merchant to rule over them. I can imagine the HRE evolving into a sort of noble republic like Poland, but first the franchise would need to be widened, at a minimum to include all the cities and princes with imperial immediacy.
True. I'd certainly say that a Noble Republic should already be able to lead HRE. But then of course, they can't get Plutocratic, so that doesn't help in this case
Personally I'm not so worried about the historical implications or appearance, just gameplay aspects. I haven't fully thought through all the implications of a republic being HR Emperor. I suppose there could be a conflict with the leader maybe changing every 4 - 8 years. But as long as the game doesn't break, that's actually a balancing downside to being a republican empire - you have to face elections far more frequently, and so it's even more important to keep those Electors sweet.
Anyway, OT for this thread! But I am impressed with those Plutocratic ideas and will definitely try them next time I'm in a game where I can't/decide not to aim for HR Emperor.
+10 IA every 4 years just for holding onto the throne could be a little bit overpowered. (Then again, it's easy enough to rack up IA as an Emperor with a strong military.)
Oh yeah, very good point! That would be the number one reason against it, and would have to be nerfed if republics were allowed. And I'm not sure if that's possible via mods
(Just checked defines and it's certainly not possible to change the +10 IA amount at all, or indeed any of the IA gains for different things.)Actually probably it could be worked around: allow republics to become emperor, then have an event that takes away 5 IA (or whatever amount) if you're a republic.
Not hugely tidy but better than nothing.
If you are Muslim, high piety can already give you a morale advantage over other religions, so you may want to consider offensive/quality first. It is important to have comparable (preferably slightly superior) morale to your rivals (in order to keep your armies in battle when they should), but otherwise you will want to deliver more strength damage, so that you do not need to rely on wiping out enemy stacks to hurt your enemies.
I may be wrong but I'm of the impression that higher discipline does beat higher morale? Often you get to crush the enemy due to it before the morale factor comes into play?
Higher morale is definitly good when one of your stacks has been engaged by a superior foe and needs to survive long enough for the reinforcements to come, but otherwise I prefer discipline to inflict maximum casualties and deplenish my ennemies manpower as quickly as possible. I usually go offensive first because it's so good, then defensive.
you are kidding right? morale is when of the most important things in combat, your soldiers wont be doing some killing when they are retreating, in addition to the fact that the morale bonus increases with tech and no other idea gives you a bonus this big so early in the idea chain.
I'm pretty sure that if 2 western tech armies of equal size and compostion meet that the side with higher discipline will win the battle?
Assuming equal tech as well...
Theres Generals, Discipline, Combat Power (works the exact same as Discipline except applies to a specific unit type), Morale, and Terrain.
your tautological argument conveniently forgets to mention morale.....
No, most battles of vaguely equivalent troops (excluding Western Tech 12 against New World 6 or whatever) end because one or other side retreats, not because one is completely destroyed. Morale is king.
This is very easy to test, BTW. Next time you find yourself in a non-Ironman game, fighting an enemy against whom you have equal tech, equal generals, better Discipline, and roughly equal morale: save the game before a big battle. Fight it normally. Reload. Lower your army maintenance to knock off X amount of morale, fight again. Repeat with varyingly lower amounts of morale.
But then you run into wierd issues like one stack technically achieving victory, but still having most of its force annihilatd while the defeated force remains mostly intact.
Well sometimes, the higher enemy morale is good because they fight to the last man and you don't have to pursue them. In my experience discipline does work wonders. Even if you do end up losing, you drain your opponent's manpower.