Retreat Mechanic is flawed

[makaramus]

you are confusing "retreat" with "shattared retreat"

Retreat:Happens when you leave combat before your army deplates its morale. Your army will move to location you told them to with incrased speed and recover morale on way.

Shattered retreat:When you reach to 0 morale your army shatters and runs away to safe location(mostly toward your capital if possible, else to safe location) with incrased speed. You cannot control your army until it reaches its destination or recover enough morale

You are not retreating when you shatter, your army runs away and dismantles thats why its running so far away now you need to reassamble it

When you retreat you can just hide behind your fort until morale refreshes so you can attack and try again

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

It is common in games to sacrifice realism for a better gameplay experience. If you retreated only 1-2 provinces, sure, it would be more realistic, but you would also lose the war instantly (because the enemy army would stackwipe you at low morale). That would get frustrating quickly, and you would blame the game for it.

By the way, as someone has already said, you can retreat right before losing the battle, and it will go to the province of your choice.

Actually, you're assuming quite a bit there of my "feelings" if the game were more realistic. That's exactly what I want - a more realistic gaming experience, which includes pursuits from battle and wiping out lesser armies, whether that be my own, or my opposition. Paradox has had a long history of quirkiness in their tactical play. They're great for amassing statistical analysis and portrayal, but they're juvenile when it comes to designing and coding in tactical battles and strategic consequences that result from winning or losing each battle. This is where Paradox fails, and needs to do a better job.

And to revisit the Realism issue - that's simply how life and battle worked in this historic period. You couldn't just find a Wormhole and warp away from a tactical engagement. Introducing sci-fi forcefields and god-mode protected Retreats is just farcical.

Now think about the dynamic that is available, that one can retreat one province away. Oh, really? That's not realistic either. Paradox's decades long self-selection option to Retreat is just as broken as my original point!! You can't just quit a tactical battle and expect to make it one province away (which is at least 25-100 miles distance). There should be a Maneuver-based algorithm that determines "IF" you can even Retreat selectively, because if the enemy has maneuver stats/capabilities that outclass your own, you can't just waltz away when you're "Decisively Engaged" (a phrase some of you less-informed of military history need to learn).

Class dismissed.

Probably the reason why they retreated to your vassal's province is because they was the only province that you owned (even if indirectly) which didn't have enemies adjacent to it. Had your army retreated to your only unoccupied province, they most likely would have been stack wiped by your enemy.

Yes, this system and flawed and it isn't properly explained in-game at all but that doesn't give you the authority to come to the forum at the same day that you bought the game and come to the forum with great ideas about how to fix this issue and how unrealistic and bad it is.

Ah, so @EarlKonrad - are you the keeper of rules for the Forum then? How many game hours are required before one posts about their experience in the game? 50 hours? 100 hours? 500 hours? 1000 hours? Pray tell, what's your troll-ish threshold to post here?

FYI, I have over 2,000 hours in Paradox games, to include 500+ in EU3 and now 50+ in EU4, but have seen the same Paradox tactical combat system in most all of them (except their fantasy games, as even Stellaris uses a similar algorithm for tactical engagements).

Some of us don't live on these Forums - we choose to primarily play the games, and on rare occasion come here to the Forums. Just because someone doesn't have thousands of Forum posts, doesn't mean they don't have thousands of hours deeply entrenched in Paradox games.

You'd need to play a lot more in order to fully understand the futility of what you're suggesting.

Is 2000+ hours in Paradox games, most of which use this same tactical fight methodology and algorithms - is 2k enough for you? (500+ in EU3 and 50+ in EU4 and counting)
Such Troll-ish behaviour here amongst some of you long-time forum dwellers. Get out and play more games, rather than "playing" on the Forum.

 

[ImAdrian]

Actually, you're assuming quite a bit there of my "feelings" if the game were more realistic. That's exactly what I want - a more realistic gaming experience, which includes pursuits from battle and wiping out lesser armies, whether that be my own, or my opposition. Paradox has had a long history of quirkiness in their tactical play. They're great for amassing statistical analysis and portrayal, but they're juvenile when it comes to designing and coding in tactical battles and strategic consequences that result from winning or losing each battle. This is where Paradox fails, and needs to do a better job.

And to revisit the Realism issue - that's simply how life and battle worked in this historic period. You couldn't just find a Wormhole and warp away from a tactical engagement. Introducing sci-fi forcefields and god-mode protected Retreats is just farcical.

Now think about the dynamic that is available, that one can retreat one province away. Oh, really? That's not realistic either. Paradox's decades long self-selection option to Retreat is just as broken as my original point!! You can't just quit a tactical battle and expect to make it one province away (which is at least 25-100 miles distance). There should be a Maneuver-based algorithm that determines "IF" you can even Retreat selectively, because if the enemy has maneuver stats/capabilities that outclass your own, you can't just waltz away when you're "Decisively Engaged" (a phrase some of you less-informed of military history need to learn).

Class dismissed.

The way I imagine it, since its called "shattered retreat", is a chaotic "run for your life" type of retreat, not an organized one. So all surviving soldiers drop everything and focus on running and nothing else. They run and they don't look back. They also don't care about orders from their commanders anymore. Meanwhile, the enemy army still maintains its ranks, so they can't run as fast to catch the scattered soldiers. That's why they can go 10 provinces away, without the enemy army being able to catch them.

The organized retreat that you're thinking of, is the one that you can order before the battle is completely lost. In that case you can choose the province to retreat to. This is already how the game works.

 

[cetvrtak]

Is 2000+ hours in Paradox games, most of which use this same tactical fight methodology and algorithms - is 2k enough for you? (500+ in EU3 and 50+ in EU4 and counting)
Such Troll-ish behaviour here amongst some of you long-time forum dwellers. Get out and play more games, rather than "playing" on the Forum.

No disrespect intended. What I meant was, if demoralised armies retreated couple of provinces away, they would run a huge risk of being stack wiped. Which is what happened in previous eu games and that experience probably forced devs to come up with this improved solution.

No comment on the second part of the post.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

The way I imagine it, since its called "shattered retreat", is a chaotic "run for your life" type of retreat, not an organized one. So all surviving soldiers drop everything and focus on running and nothing else. They run and they don't look back. They also don't care about orders from their commanders anymore. Meanwhile, the enemy army still maintains its ranks, so they can't run as fast to catch the scattered soldiers. That's why they can go 10 provinces away, without the enemy army being able to catch them.

The organized retreat that you're thinking of, is the one that you can order before the battle is completely lost. In that case you can choose the province to retreat to. This is already how the game works.

So, this is illogical on multiple levels. For one, there is still the factor of being "Decisively Engaged" - that means, in a pitched battle, that you're already in knife/sword/club-fighting range, and you will get engaged by layers of your opposition, even if you choose to try and run. Front lines blurred, formations ebbed and flowed and would break with seams if weakened, with forces able to move through front-line ranks into more mid- to rear-guard areas. This was real war, not this mythical stuff that is just an algorithm, and it gets difficult to reproduce in games (which is partly why I'm so motivated to post here, so that Paradox actually starts moving their games toward a more Realism approach to portray battles rather than a stats/algorithm/dice roll series of advanced RNGenius work on their part).

You assume that you can just drop everything and run away, right? Do you realize what actually happened to the majority of those who did such, in real wars where their opponent had the upper hand in Maneuver/Speed? Most were killed, especially when Cavalry involved. While my Original Post is about Native Americans, I am now generalizing because the topic at hand is about Retreat in general, and this so-called "Shattered Retreat" that Paradox made up themselves and isn't actually a real military operational term, nor historically accurate (and a sci-fi journey in God-Mode to some random safe zone far away from battle, inside this current version of the game).

The other logic problem is that if truly "shattered" then why would 8k+ soldiers remain together for a cross-continental trek to regroup and then fight another day. They're so "shattered" that they all run for a 1,000 miles to the same exact spot? Again, defies logic, but more importantly, a retreat can be pursued. Since when does a retreat result in guaranteed success at leaving that pitched battle, in which one is Decisively Engaged? Decisively Engaged means just that - you're so committed that you can't disengage, you can't run at all, away, or turning your back means stabbed in the back. That's why I used the phrase here (Decisively Engaged), because it's a standard Military operational and historic term, that Paradox Dev's themselves need to get more familiar with (I could go on quite a bit about the lack of real military terms and strategy among Paradox Dev's, which can be seen in several interviews conducted and archived online, but I digress...).

I am prodding/suggesting for an option like the CK series, that we choose in game setup to turn on/off this so-called Shattered Retreat for the more traditional Paradox version of retreat (which itself is still flawed but at least no Sci-Fi God-mode while retreating). Separate from this, Paradox should start considering an overhaul to their tactical play. These same dice-roll based, juvenile tactical algorithms need to be updated for their newer games, and it's high time we players demand more of them.

 

[cetvrtak]

So, this is illogical on multiple levels. For one, there is still the factor of being "Decisively Engaged" - that means, in a pitched battle, that you're already in knife/sword/club-fighting range, and you will get engaged by layers of your opposition, even if you choose to try and run. Front lines blurred, formations ebbed and flowed and would break with seams if weakened, with forces able to move through front-line ranks into more mid- to rear-guard areas. This was real war, not this mythical stuff that is just an algorithm, and it gets difficult to reproduce in games (which is partly why I'm so motivated to post here, so that Paradox actually starts moving their games toward a more Realism approach to portray battles rather than a stats/algorithm/dice roll series of advanced RNGenius work on their part).

You assume that you can just drop everything and run away, right? Do you realize what actually happened to the majority of those who did such, in real wars where their opponent had the upper hand in Maneuver/Speed? Most were killed, especially when Cavalry involved. While my Original Post is about Native Americans, I am now generalizing because the topic at hand is about Retreat in general, and this so-called "Shattered Retreat" that Paradox made up themselves and isn't actually a real military operational term, nor historically accurate (and a sci-fi journey in God-Mode to some random safe zone far away from battle, inside this current version of the game).

The other logic problem is that if truly "shattered" then why would 8k+ soldiers remain together for a cross-continental trek to regroup and then fight another day. They're so "shattered" that they all run for a 1,000 miles to the same exact spot? Again, defies logic, but more importantly, a retreat can be pursued. Since when does a retreat result in guaranteed success at leaving that pitched battle, in which one is Decisively Engaged? Decisively Engaged means just that - you're so committed that you can't disengage, you can't run at all, away, or turning your back means stabbed in the back. That's why I used the phrase here (Decisively Engaged), because it's a standard Military operational and historic term, that Paradox Dev's themselves need to get more familiar with (I could go on quite a bit about the lack of real military terms and strategy among Paradox Dev's, which can be seen in several interviews conducted and archived online, but I digress...).

I am prodding/suggesting for an option like the CK series, that we choose in game setup to turn on/off this so-called Shattered Retreat for the more traditional Paradox version of retreat (which itself is still flawed but at least no Sci-Fi God-mode while retreating). Separate from this, Paradox should start considering an overhaul to their tactical play. These same dice-roll based, juvenile tactical algorithms need to be updated for their newer games, and it's high time we players demand more of them.

So you're saying it's not the Retreat that is flawed but the whole Battle mechanic?

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

So you're saying it's not the Retreat that is flawed but the whole Battle mechanic?

No, I'm saying that Retreat is part of Battle, the two are not divorced from each other. Retreat is a phase of tactical warfare, not something that is just a "stop everything, now we've moved past combat and into retreat" -- Paradox doesn't do this well, to factor in the entire episode of battle where even the Retreat actions play out as part of Battle. That's why it's called the "Pursuit" after all, and Pursuit was still a part of the Battle!

I've always been critical of Paradox's battle mechanics, and posted more in Steam than here, about games of the past. As I play EU4, in contrast to EU3, CK Series, Victoria series (complete 1 and 2), and Stellaris -- in all cases, Paradox needs to get better at playing out the Tactical battles in their games, which includes the way battles have a final phase that is the Retreat (or Withdrawals, that could follow more modern military terminology to include Withdrawal, and Withdrawal Under Fire, etc.).

Historically, there was no formal thing such as "Shattered Retreat" so that's just made up inside the boiler room of the Game Designers. Has no basis in history, and when inserted in this game is a Sci-Fi God-Mode move to a far-off safe zone.

Each one of these has criticism levied at them, not just a macro criticism of battle mechanics.

 

[Kimbole]

Paradox needs to get better at playing out the Tactical battles in their games, which includes the way battles have a final phase that is the Retreat (or Withdrawals, that could follow more modern military terminology to include Withdrawal, and Withdrawal Under Fire, etc.).

You say need. I don't really see why that would necessarily make for a better game at all. Perhaps you could sketch out some specifics as to how you think it would improve combat?

Full disclosure. I think greater complexity in the combat system could well end up trying to turn EU IV into a different sort of game, and leave it satisfying noone much. Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't a good thing in my opinion. Particularly given the only complaint about shattered retreat seems to be that it is unrealistic, rather than gameplay problems it has.

 

[EarlKonrad]

I've always been critical of Paradox's battle mechanics, and posted more in Steam than here, about games of the past. As I play EU4, in contrast to EU3, CK Series, Victoria series (complete 1 and 2), and Stellaris -- in all cases, Paradox needs to get better at playing out the Tactical battles in their games, which includes the way battles have a final phase that is the Retreat (or Withdrawals, that could follow more modern military terminology to include Withdrawal, and Withdrawal Under Fire, etc.).

Historically, there was no formal thing such as "Shattered Retreat" so that's just made up inside the boiler room of the Game Designers. Has no basis in history, and when inserted in this game is a Sci-Fi God-Mode move to a far-off safe zone.

What do you think about the changes done to the combat from EU III to EU IV? Namely how retreat was changed and how different tech groups is much less significant when it comes to troop quality. Also, what about the old EU III fort system Vs EU IV's system?

Just curious because the number of players that have experience with EU III is only getting smaller.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

You say need. I don't really see why that would necessarily make for a better game at all. Perhaps you could sketch out some specifics as to how you think it would improve combat?

Full disclosure. I think greater complexity in the combat system could well end up trying to turn EU IV into a different sort of game, and leave it satisfying noone much. Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't a good thing in my opinion. Particularly given the only complaint about shattered retreat seems to be that it is unrealistic, rather than gameplay problems it has.

I agree that we would not want complexity just for the sake of complexity.
Up front, two points to emphasize for players and Paradox:
- The Withdrawal (Under Fire or not) is still a part of Battle in all military training and lexicon. It is not a separate thing from Battle, it is in a final phase of battle.
- The maneuver referred to as "Withdrawal Under Fire" is a commonly recognized phrase among all Western militaries for centuries, and this maneuver is considered the absolute #1 most difficult tactic to train for military officers and soldiers. In many cases, worldwide, even in modern day, it is far too ignored due to over-confidence in a military force that assumes it will not lose a battle, and will not have to perform this maneuver, so it is both the most difficult, yet least trained tactic, on average, among all modern military forces.
- A Retrograde is a form of Withdrawal that has a plan to counter-attack in leap-frog staggering maneuvers, but I am not discussing that option in this note (but it is yet another option that could be added to Paradox's EU series or otherwise).

A "how to" - to keep it simple and yet better integrate what is a Withdrawal or Withdrawal Under Fire into this game, first with a Macro Concept:
- a Withdrawal allows a more distant retreat from the province (perhaps 2-5 provinces away, at most, depending on stats variance from enemy), whereas a Withdrawal Under Fire should only allow a 1-province distance for retreat (you are slowed as you are "Suppressed" by fire and/or maneuver forces causing attrition in your Withdrawal Under Fire).
Another set of factors that helps show change, from a Multiplayer point of view --
- Example 1: Player one's Army + Commander has better speed/Maneuver but will lose the main phase of battle (what we see play out in small pop-up with dice rolls and one side loses more forces and/or morale than the other), while Player two has the upper hand to win the main-phase battle but not as much speed/maneuver, so then a pop-up comes up for Player 1 or a self-selection button is available for "Withdraw" (not Retreat) as that would not be under fire, because the better speed/maneuver cavalry force would outpace the opposition. There should be a cost, yet more % lost as you Withdraw, that an algorithm could factor more/less depending on a not-in-current-game stat of forces and/or commanders to reflect their ability to disengage from combat, but in simple terms, one could expect a smaller percentage loss in disengagement from forces that are superior in speed/maneuver.
- Example 2: Opposite stats but same battle result, Player 1 is lower speed/maneuver for Army + Commander AND will lose main phase of battle, in contrast to Player 2 who is superior in the main phase of battle and will win, AND has superior speed/maneuver and will outpace the slower Player who tries to Withdraw. So, Player 1 would have an algorithm that forces him to choose "Withdraw Under Fire" and only that 1-Province retreat, with a greater percentage of forces lost during the Withdrawal Under Fire in contrast to Example 1. The Dev's could leave in small chances in algorithm to enable even this scenario to have a 10% chance to still receive a "Withdraw" move, that then allows the 2-5 province distance retreat, but it should not be the norm, on averages.
- Example 3: Near-equal stats for speed/maneuver and combat power (Army+Commander), then you get an algorithm working that factors out your chances to Withdraw vs Withdraw Under Fire, with RNG Luck being on your side if you get the preferred chance to Withdraw. I wouldn't call it 50/50 odds, there could be other factors such as who started on Offense vs Defense, what the proportion of remaining forces are for Player 1 vs 2, etc, so it should be an algorithm that factors your lottery odds.

This would move us into a more realistic Withdraw vs Withdrawal Under Fire system at the last phase of battle, while still parsing out that small popup main phase of battle that precedes it, even if the remainder of core battle mechanics were left untouched.

Take my Multiplayer description and make it computer/RNG for player 1 or 2, and it's the same thing in Single Person play, but not interaction (in Multiplayer, it could be set up that one of the players chooses to allow Withdrawal of their opponent, out of kindness).

Last thing I have thought of - the Withdrawal Under Fire should have some attrition cost to the Pursuing forces also, and it could be countered in some rare cases depending on some special skills for Counter-Attacking, etc., but pursuing an enemy who is Withdrawal Under Fire should still have some cost to it, and the Player 2 should get an option to cancel the Pursuit if that player thinks any further losses or risk is not worth the Pursuit.

 

[Kimbole]

This would move us into a more realistic Withdraw vs Withdrawal Under Fire system at the last phase of battle, while still parsing out that small popup main phase of battle that precedes it, even if the remainder of core battle mechanics were left untouched.

Perhaps. I'm more interested in how it might change the way that I interact with the game and affect the ratio of interesting strategies to play with and fiddly micromanagement involved than realism. I am not convinced to be honest.

In what way could losses while withdrawing not just be considered part of the current battle mechanics/results? Some of those losses could easily have come during some sort of withdrawal? I'm not sure that currently units, provinces or battle phases have enough resolution for more tactical detail (and I don't know if I personally want them to).

Isn't all you're really doing adding a different stat to maximise, or buffing manoeuver rather than adding any strategic depth? How would I approach either managing my army or deciding whether to engage in battles differently? I suppose I want to make sure I can pursue/withdraw more effectively, so I need to think about whether I want to gain modifiers which help this. Other than that, battles are still a question of army quantity + quality with one more modifier, with the added addition of an increased possibility of having my army not retreat far enough to survive, or being able to repeatedly smash an AI army I trap. Anything that makes it easier for me to beat the AI is emphatically not going to make the game more fun.

When EU V comes along, I'm sure the combat mechanics and phases of battle will be looked with regards to these sorts of things. This seems to me that it could interact in interesting ways with terrain for example. If there were certain types of army I might want to avoid in certain terrain types because they can harass and retreat effectively that could be an interesting addition. That then adds decisions to be made. I think for suggestions like this would work better as part of a deeper rework though.

But as I say, I'm not sure that I'm really the right market for this sort of suggestion...

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

While I can agree that the military system has many unrealistic aspects, I don't think it aims to depict combat and tactics in a realistic way. Its a game and it just follows its own logic from gameplay purposes, only because it is realistic doesn't mean it is better. Furthermore, EU4 has an extreme bird's eyes perspective focusing on general strategy, diplomacy, economy and so on. The combat system is and must be massively simplified under these circumstances. It is still complicated and difficult to understand and handle for a beginner due to many variables that need to be taken into account. But for a more realistic depiction would require quite a different game.

I think the shattered retreat is one of the elements that forces you to build up warscore and not have a single battle decide the whole war (although it can still happen - stackwhipe). Same as I need to occupy London or at least parts of mainland england to get English land on the continent transferred, even realistically I can exclude them from getting there.
Also its more of the situation after the battle is already over, the withdrawal phase you depict could still be seen a part of the battle as mentioned above.

Finally, I don't think its the time and place for a rework of the combat system. That is an intereszting aspect for a EU5 - whenever it comes. The system works, even though it has its flaws. I think if one wants to be more realistic one could also look into such things a Prisoners of War and desertion. That situation without retreat possible would most likely lead to the soldiers taken prisoner of war, and the equipment also been taken over by the enemy giving them advantages. Such a rework should however aim to improve the game, if it becomes more realistic on the way nice to have, but the gameplay needs to be the focus.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

While the game is based in history its combat system is not designed to be realistic. If you are looking for realism in it you are looking for a different game (and, as mentioned above a more realiztic retreat would need a complete combat overhaul).

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Just another reason people love mountains.

Yep, letting the AI filter into a scorched mountain province to be destroyed piecemeal rather than dogpiling you is pretty funny. Any one of the ways you can reliably defeat a significantly stronger opponent.

Just don't lose the occupation because the scorched earth can be a bitch to deal with, although you can see it so you don't need to be as stupid as the AI.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

Of course sometimes the game bugs out and makes adjacent retreats happen anyway, acting as if forts exist in the area even if they don't (seems to be a broken interaction with movement lock).

Can also abuse the game's algorithm of avoiding shattering to distant provinces if anything is in an adjacent province to them (even 1 regiment, even if that 1 regiment can't move past a ZoC) to force adjacent-province retreats from AI too.

Though retreat rules aren't so bad. It's military access nonsense that makes things truly cancerous.

The more that I play EUIV, the more that I see your point about -- "It's military access nonsense that makes things truly cancerous." ZoC is a non-historic, purely game development add-in to make an attempt at balancing what is otherwise a poorly designed military tactical system for playing out battles in this game. No such thing as Force Fields in the 16th Century to prevent one from moving an army through a Province just because a Fort exists there or in adjacent provinces. In fact, the Teutonic Order was the textbook definition of staying inside the castle, as they were much less prone to sally forth into battle and enjoyed the defenses of their constructed fortresses and all the intricate ways they could provide a field of fire/arrows out the fortress and defenses in layers/depth if any penetration occurred in the outer layers. However, one could waltz right through the Teuton's land, due to their overly fortress centric posture.
Plus, these Provinces are at scale - 100 or more miles in width/length, with a fortress only a few hundred feet at most. Lots of open space to roam in/around a fortress back in the 16th Century, and no cellphones to take a pic and data-burst it over to the guard tower. Yeah, I'm not a ZoC fan, yet another thing Paradox needs to purge from EUV game design. ZoC is the kind of new "feature" that should result in particular Paradox employees getting fired.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

While the game is based in history its combat system is not designed to be realistic. If you are looking for realism in it you are looking for a different game (and, as mentioned above a more realiztic retreat would need a complete combat overhaul).

There's clearly a Balance that must always be achieved to make a video game enjoyable, but I don't advocate your theory that realism isn't possible - I would advocate for "logic" first and foremost, with the "spirit of realism" applied. However, when it's both illogical and unrealistic, there is a two-pronged problem for the combat system here. I'm not over-the-top advocating for realism, but most importantly for logical gameplay.

 

[Battlex]

The more that I play EUIV, the more that I see your point about -- "It's military access nonsense that makes things truly cancerous." ZoC is a non-historic, purely game development add-in to make an attempt at balancing what is otherwise a poorly designed military tactical system for playing out battles in this game. No such thing as Force Fields in the 16th Century to prevent one from moving an army through a Province just because a Fort exists there or in adjacent provinces. In fact, the Teutonic Order was the textbook definition of staying inside the castle, as they were much less prone to sally forth into battle and enjoyed the defenses of their constructed fortresses and all the intricate ways they could provide a field of fire/arrows out the fortress and defenses in layers/depth if any penetration occurred in the outer layers. However, one could waltz right through the Teuton's land, due to their overly fortress centric posture.
Plus, these Provinces are at scale - 100 or more miles in width/length, with a fortress only a few hundred feet at most. Lots of open space to roam in/around a fortress back in the 16th Century, and no cellphones to take a pic and data-burst it over to the guard tower. Yeah, I'm not a ZoC fan, yet another thing Paradox needs to purge from EUV game design. ZoC is the kind of new "feature" that should result in particular Paradox employees getting fired.

The AI is capped to 5% attrition, so marching behind Fort lines giving attrition would only do so much. ZoC causing provinces to flip back being stopped by sieging with 1k would mean carpet sieges would be beyond easy to do.

If we got rid of ZoC we'd need old style sieges of every province

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

What do you think about the changes done to the combat from EU III to EU IV? Namely how retreat was changed and how different tech groups is much less significant when it comes to troop quality. Also, what about the old EU III fort system Vs EU IV's system?

Just curious because the number of players that have experience with EU III is only getting smaller.

@EarlKonrad - I've delayed answering, but I have mixed feelings about many things that differ from EU3 to EU4. I'm not a fan of fort play in either game, but EU4 is less preferable because the Zone of Control (ZoC) forcefield play is yet another sci-fi addition within EU4. I guess with each new version of the game we inject yet more sci-fi, or perhaps the development of Stellaris helped justify such fantasy. I've already heard that ZoC issues have been discussed ad nauseum, and I would just summarize to say - ZoC is not a historically accurate addition to the game, seems to be a poorly thought out way to try and achieve balance in the gameplay, and this system should be totally purged from EU5's game design.

As for Troop Quality, that stands out as a disappointment in EU4. In EU3, we felt a really noticeable change in generational advancement when military tech advances and new troop types were possible. Here's the same if not more of a problem coupled with this - rebellions that apparently have secret training camps and Officer training schools in some underground facilities. You can be totally exhausted of your available manpower, in let's say - the best possible 10K Army of an upstart small nation, scratching and clawing against your neighbor nations for your very survival, and - of course the people would know this, right?? I mean, it's their sons dying out there! (yeah I know, just bytes dying in a game, but you get my point) - so, why would my nation creep toward rebellion when the very survival of everyone is at risk? Some nation-state wars were "Existential" and - I think the Paradox Dev's need to add that qualifier to battles in EU5, so that rebellions are suppressed and national focus is honed differently in a war where the people would know - "we better win this one or they're chopping off all our heads, or selling us down the river to pick cotton as a slave" -- but the reason I say this, I've had so many occurrences where I'm playing a small nation who must pull out all the stops to grow up, and it's rough to build up if you're even at Normal/Iron Man mode, and suddenly the rebellion activates and they have 15K forces at/better quality than the main army, with a Commander who has more talent than a commander with Years of drill and training. Ok, see how illogical that is? The people may have only scrounged a few decent weapons, and mostly were just farming implements, no armor, and their commander would be some power-hungry fool that thinks he can field some willing numbers to throw in the grinder at the main force, but - you wouldn't have that kind of courage unless they themselves think it's existential to them, right? But these rebellions are often out of convenience (i.e. part of a group that seems to have received a bit less power/money than other groups lately). So, the Rebellions and their mythical large numbers and best-possible troops and commanders are just plain illogical. Dev's need to do better, as they should be scaled to be no better than the low-violence rated natives in the pacific islands.

But back to Forts. This game doesn't accommodate the main army taking residence in the fort - never, ever is a fort defense factored. In this game, the Dev's believe that all armies live outside the fortress and must stand out there without pitched defenses, just waiting around until the next enemy army passes through. The Dev's read history - they have soldier variants that are supposed to be the equivalent of Pike Squares and the paragraph text talks about Pike Squares, but the troops in battle don't reflect that strategy. They're just another number difference. I mean, if the Dev's actually did their homework and used more than just a reference to justify yet-another-dot added to the stats of the icon, they'd see that Pike Squares were akin to bringing in guns vs swords, or machine-guns vs bolt-action rifles. Pike Squares were "It" for a while there, and they only became more capable with centrally placed Xbow and/or Pistol-wielding officers who helped keep the pressure off them. You couldn't beat a good Pike Square on the field of battle, especially coordinated ones spread out. Haven't the Dev's ever read the book by Jomini, one of the greatest military theorists of all time? Jomini's book is partly about how formations and Pike Squares set in specific ways were near-guaranteed to win the wars of their day. Pike Squares helped inspire Jomini to think through how to emplace/wield them even better. Heck, a Pike Square should have like all dots filled for shock and morale defense for that icon, compared to whatever the Dev's put in there. Yeah I know - not balanced for this game, and they'd have to be scaled back as other troop units come in later with more advancements in gun tech, especially once the 40+ step drill for formations quickly firing, clearing, reloading, prep/aim and firing weapons over again - basically "drill" that increase the "Rate of Fire" for otherwise unwieldy and not-so-user-friendly rifles of their day. I can only imagine how thankful troops were when cartridge ammunition came available compared to all that 40+ steps of drill. At that point, "drill" became more ceremony for parades than for actual warfighting.

I digress - there's a lot that even these history-educated game developers from Paradox need to learn. Many of them have a Wikipedia-deep knowledge of world history, with cutesy points to inject into the game, but they need to take a deeper history lesson and learn more about military history, military tech advancement, and how/why not just unit types changed but how formations and tactics changed, and somehow/someway make EU5 a game that finally overhauls and brings out a better and more enriching combat system. Bear in mind- I don't want full control in the battle itself, necessarily, but even if the battle runs through an algorithm, I'd like to see that take place more logically and with more significant tech and strategy enhancements factoring into the way that battle plays out. I mean - think about it, in real life 300 men held off thousands at a bottleneck point near Sparta, but in this game there's never a chance for small yet advanced and well-trained soldiers to carry the day.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

The AI is capped to 5% attrition, so marching behind Fort lines giving attrition would only do so much. ZoC causing provinces to flip back being stopped by sieging with 1k would mean carpet sieges would be beyond easy to do.

If we got rid of ZoC we'd need old style sieges of every province

On the surface, that sounds like the logic of the game design for this was that -- since there was a flawed core combat system, a flawed solution (ZoC) was implemented, and the Dev's stepped back and started some GroupThink that somehow 2 negatives put together equaled a Positive Outcome.