Reworking Warfare: The Megathread

Reworking Warfare: The Megathread

  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning

Grand Historian

Pretentious Username
77 Badges
May 13, 2014
5.225
9.142
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
(Well, it’s been a fair amount of time since the last mega-thread I did – time for another.)

It’s become rather apparent over the years that warfare in EU4 has… lagged behind the rest of the gameplay somewhat. In fact, despite the game being driven by warfare, warfare proper hasn’t really ever gotten a comprehensive update, in spite of much clamor on the forums to rectify such a state (clamor I make no secret of having avidly participated in). There’s fair speculation that the next update will focus on warfare or touch upon it – if so, perhaps this is not the most fortuitous time for me to make this thread, but I would regardless like to get many collected ideas out on how warfare in EU4 might be improved.

New Unit Types and Manpower Division

The first, and perhaps largest, suggestion I would like to make is for the division of unit types. As this is a very vague suggestion, it requires a multi-faceted response.

The first step to this is the most radical: the division of units and unit categories into professional units and conscript units. This would similarly result in a division of the manpower pool, with a conscripted pool and a professional pool – obviously the professional would be smaller than conscripted pool (I’d personally place it at 1/7th of the conscripted). Now, the question obviously falls to what to do with the division: I’ve seen an oft requested division in infantry, but I will go one step further and advocate for dividing the current three unit categories (Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery) into six: Conscripted, Professional, Skirmisher, Cavalry, Cuirassier, and Artillery, or three different Infantry categories, two Cavalry, and then the lone Artillery. While all these units would use the same unit categories (and thus fire/shock/morale pips), each would be awarded different levels of shock and fire from tech. Additionally, for this I would recommend shifting Morale from a universal gain to per category gain, in the same vein of fire and shock – this would accomplish not only professional units being able to deal more damage (though in this aspect it should even out a bit late game), but being able to last in battle longer than conscripted units. Finally, the units should have different unit sizes; this will be crucial to a few of my following suggestions below, but for now I’ll simply focus on what I believe to be an ideal scaling and the immediate benefits:

Conscripted: 1000 Conscripted Manpower/10 Ducats
Professional: 500 Professional Manpower/25 Ducats
Skirmisher: 750 Conscripted Manpower/15 Ducats (2-3 flanking range to Inf’s 1-2, high fire-low shock)
Cavalry: 750 Conscripted Manpower/25 Ducats
Cuirassier: 500 Professional Manpower/35 Ducats
Artillery: 1000 Professional Manpower/50 Ducats

Now, what would variation in the unit sizes offer? The first and most obvious is that it will allow for much more dynamic gameplay: there would be more intuition to building armies and would allow for more varied playstyles owing to the breakup of unit categories (and the boons that various modifiers give to them); additionally, it will make Artillery spam more difficult due to shifting it to the smaller manpower pool that it shares with two other categories. It also allows for significantly more historical gameplay, with armies closer to both the sizes of armies early on, and for allowing distinction in army development: for example, China’s overwhelming manpower advantage can be better represented now with the overwhelming amount of their army being conscripts, while the small armies of medieval Europe would be able to have a larger professional component early on (for example, Feudal Monarchies would give +25% Professional Manpower Modifier rather than +10% Manpower Modifier, while EoC’s ‘Boost the Officer Corps’ would give +20% Professional Combat Ability rather than +10% Inf. Combat – though I believe all such general modifiers can stay at lower values).

Different manpower pools and unit categories themselves would allow, via value gain from tech and other modifiers from events and decision, for a proper representation of historical occurrences like levee en masse, the decline of heavy cavalry (Cuirassier) and the emergence of light cavalry, the refinement of skirmishers, the emergence and expansion of professional troops, etc. Finally, this can help benefit tall and small nations: the latter would have a higher proportion of professional units to their overall army, and the former will be able to afford to have an almost entirely-professional army. Both, naturally, are boons to defensive gameplay.

Mercenaries

(Special thanks goes to @Bella Gerant for coming up with the original idea that eventually metastasized into this.)

This is something that has been in need of an overhaul for a very long time, and frankly it shows. Drawing upon CKII as a base, I would first like to advocate that mercenaries should no longer be able to be recruited as individual regiments, but instead act as coherent, preset companies of units you can recruit, usually only 3000-9000 thousand strong. Much like in CKII, these companies would be tied to geographical regions, with their preset unit composition being dependent on region. These companies cannot be merged with other armies or have individual regiments removed or disbanded from them (you may only disband the company as a whole), and they come with their own leader (generated with 40-60 AT), who does not count towards the leader pool, but can also not be fired or reassigned; whenever a company’s leader dies, he’s automatically replaced. Finally, a mercenary company is immediately recruited to the province you recruit them in, rather than built over time, and you can only recruit a region’s mercenary company if you own or occupy a province in that region. This is where the similarities begin to break down.

Mercenaries Companies will only make use of professional troops: meaning the 500 strong Professional and Cuirassier regiments, and the occasional Artillery regiment; meaning a only 4000 strong company of mercenaries will have much more punch than it would currently ingame. However, rather than replenish naturally over time via cash, mercenary regiments will instead replenish their ranks via another manpower pool: mercenary manpower. This pool functions the most radically from all others, however: it is not one attached to your nation, but instead to each region geographical region. The way a region’s mercenary manpower is calculated is that the limit is the sum of the total professional manpower provided by an entire region’s manpower dev (not factoring autonomy/estates/territories/etc.). The monthly regain rate is then the sum of that divided by ten.

Allow me to make an example that’s likely easier to follow. As of 1.24, the Italy region has 148 total manpower (assuming I counted correctly). 148 x 250 – the base amount of manpower each point gives you – is a total of 37000 manpower. Then let’s use my previous example for professional manpower and divide that by 7 – the result is 5285 professional soldiers (which would leave only 31715 conscripts to go to the other pool). That is mercenary manpower pool for the region at start, and its limit (until the manpower dev of the region changes). Then divide 5285 by 10: the monthly regain rate of that region’s manpower pool would be 528. Now say there are 6 different active (employed) mercenary companies from Italy, each 5000 strong but having been reduced to 4000 each: all those companies would draw from Italy’s merc manpower pool until the 6000 troop difference has been settled. But if 1 of those companies is from the Spain region, then it would draw its 1000 troops from Spain’s merc manpower pool, while the remaining 5000 would come from Italy. Of course, all of these are just numbers that should be changed as seen fit, but I believe the principle is good.

Next would be cost: the upfront cost of hiring a mercenary company would be the total sum of its contingent units as you would hire them as normal units, divided by 1.25: so a 5000 strong mercenary company, with 7 Professional Regiments and 3 Cuirassier Regiments would cost 224 ducats upfront (sum of 280/1.25). There would be no +1% increase in upfront cost for recruitment to discourage spamming – as Mercenary Companies are now scarce and can be competed for – but rather the +1% increase in cost is instead shifted to maintenance: in addition to the +150% Maintenance Cost that mercenary units, every month you keep a mercenary company under employment, its maintenance cost is increased by that 1% - so keeping mercenary companies around indefinitely is also not viable, especially in peacetime.

Professionalism works differently for Mercenaries as well: all mercenary regiments will be stuck at 40% Professionalism – they can’t be drilled, but their professionalism will never decrease due to casualties, reinforcements or natural decay. Additionally, a mercenary company will not be able to make use of any of the professionalism actions that a normal army would (supply depot/refill garrison/etc.), but the individual regiments would still gain the military benefits of professionalism. However, being self-equipped and trained and not having loyalty to any one state, they do not benefit from any of the military modifiers of their employing state beyond Mercenary Discipline (the only way they could get another modifier would be via general traits). As you’re recruiting whole companies rather than individual regiments, the hit to professionalism would have to be reworked – either by setting it as a flat variable (-2.5% per company?) or by being the total sum of all regiments in a company.

Finally, Mercenary companies will automatically update their unit classes to the latest prescribed model, whenever the first nation in the region they’re assigned to reaches the tech level that unlocks it. So, for example, for those few mercenary companies that would have an artillery component in their company, they would immediately gain it upon the first nation in their region reaching Mil Tech 7, or would attain Men-at-Arms when someone in their region reaches tech level 5. This idea could be further expounded upon to have the unit sizes and composition of companies change with the tech levels, should the idea of large numbers of late-game mercenaries floating about be undesirable.

As these are some rather significant changes, I would also like to lay out my ideas for how the various modifiers regarding mercenaries should be altered in light of them.

Mercenary Cost/Maintenance: The first would be merging the Mercenary Cost and Maintenance modifier into a single one, so that it not only reduces the upfront cost, but the maintenance cost – as maintenance now increases over time and you have to pay lump sums, I think this is well justified (especially as Mercenary Cost is non-existent outside of Admin ideas). As this merger would leave a blank slot in Admin, I would recommend it get filled in with Merc Discipline.

Mercenary Discipline: I would like to advocate for two changes to Mercenary Maintenance. First, as it will be the only military modifier of the employing nation that will affect the performance of mercenaries in battle, I would recommend doubling the amount one can get it in to +10%. Secondly, to have Mercenary Discipline also increase the Professionalism of Mercenary units in the employ of a nation; so that if you have +10% Mercenary Discipline, Mercenary companies in your employment will have 50 professionalism instead of 40.

Available Mercenaries: Like the other two modifiers, Available Mercenaries will now have two effects: the first is that, rather than now acting how many mercenaries you can recruit compared to your forcelimit, is that now AM acts as the Reinforcement Speed for Mercenaries (as they would be unaffected by any Reinforce Speed modifiers from their employers not tied to provinces or maintenance). The second would be that it also increases the amount of mercenaries your provinces contribute to the mercenary pool of a region – so having +25% Available Mercenaries will not only have your Merc regiments reinforce at +25% faster, but also give a region’s merc pool +25% Mercenaries from provinces you own in it.

The total sum of all these changes will leave mercenaries for the better, I think. To cap it off with a short summary:

Mercenaries will be less costly upfront/short term than a professional army of their size, but will be more costly long term, and keeping them employed non-stop will no longer be viable. All as it was historically.

Mercenaries will truly no longer be limitless, drawing from their own manpower pools and being concentrated into a few companies. Additionally, nations now have to compete for them, making merc spams difficult and monopolizing them hard.

Between being exclusively professional soldiers, having pre-established professionalism that won’t tank, and getting higher amounts of discipline early on, complete with coming with generals that will usually be more/as competent as most early generals, and always having the cutting edge military units, mercenary companies will have notably more punch early on but will lag behind once the Morale, Combat Ability, and superior discipline, professionalism and generals of national forces starts to come into play. As they did.

Between regional recruitment, the Merc Discipline in Plutocracy, and the new ways you recruit them and the lump sum involved, Mercenary Companies would more heavily favor tall and/or republican nations.

Altogether, I think these changes will make Mercenaries more intuitive, historical, and engaging.

Garrisons, Garrison Capacity and Captains

Now, this brings me to something else I’d like to cover; Garrisons. It’s still relatively well known that playing defensive, is, frankly, not viable. I’d like to offer a solution that I think would help change that.

The first aspect of this is to completely overhaul how garrisons are generated and function. Currently garrisons are determined purely by the fort size – which carries with it a steep maintenance cost – and automatically fill up over time, and both those can be affected by scarce modifiers that can be found here or there if you’re the right nation. You can finally sortie out the garrison if it comes under siege, but it costs valuable mana and it’s usually not going to be effective. It’s functional, easy to understand, but not very deep and one of the things holding back defensive warfare from flowering, in my opinion. At least, in its current state.

The first step to rectifying this would be to change Garrison Size to Garrison Capacity. In this, fortifications would no longer automatically come with a garrison; rather, you would have to recruit regiments into a garrison. The basic formula of how Garrison Capacity is calculated would still be the same as Garrison Size – 1000 for every fort level – but instead it can be filled up a la carte. For example, say there’s a Fort with 3000 Garrison Capacity; then it can hold six professional regiments, or two professional regiments and two conscripted regiments, or a professional regiment, a heavy cav regiment, a conscripted regiment, and an artillery regiment, etc – I’ll cover the importance of choice later.

To recruit units into a Garrison, you have to pay an upfront cost like normal, but rather than having all the troops available at once, the individual regiments instead reinforce monthly (as it does now) – additionally, Garrison Growth should also serve as a modifier on the upfront cost of recruiting a regiment (which, combined with being able to actively recruit regiments, would make it actually useful as an idea). Instead of having a Fort Maintenance based off of Fort Level, Fort Maintenance should instead be drawn from the total cost of the units garrisoned in it – whereas mothballing a fortress only clears out the manpower (and maintenance costs) of the conscripted garrison regiments, while halving the maintenance costs and manpower of the professional units. Finally, the old Garrison Size modifier should instead be overhauled (I.E, generally increased) to accommodate Garrison Capacity; for example, +25% Garrison Capacity with a 6000 capacity fort would allow for 1500 more capacity. There should also be some more events, decisions and provincial modifiers that allow for increases in local garrison capacity (for example, many of the Knights’ events can give them more Garrison capacity in Rhodes in addition to Fort Defense, etc.).

The next component of this overhaul to Fort’s functionality would be an entirely new mechanic: Captains. Captains would be leaders you can hire to command the fort; both in a siege, assault and in a sortie. They would be leaders of a sort; you can hire them for 25 Mil from the garrison panel of any singular fort, and while they don’t count towards the leader pool, they cannot leave their fort and suffer a 0.6 roll for their pips upon generation. Additionally pips work slightly different for them; while Fire and Shock reprise their generic roles on the battlefield, Maneuver and Siege take on an entirely different meaning for them: every pip of maneuver a garrison commander has increases local hostile attrition by 0.25, and Garrison Growth by 5%. Whereas every pip of Siege increases Defensiveness and Morale by 5%.

This plays into the final part: redone sorties and assaults. Put bluntly, both are dull and flat. First, to recommend two changes; tone down the defensiveness bonuses across the board, and instead have it double as a defending garrison’s discipline value during sorties and assaults, rather than overall discipline. This would allow for a significant boon to defensive/tall gameplay. Secondly, give garrisons morale, and instead have the traditional siege method of waiting out a garrison contingent upon reducing the garrison’s total morale to zero (rather than the current timer method. Not unlike CKII). Garrison’s newfound strength would, however, be offset by the fact that they would not have access to Professionalism.

Sorties would no longer require Mil points to launch; instead it would require your garrison to have a Captain, who leads your forces on the field of combat: being in open combat, any cavalry participating in the siege (either as part of the garrison or the besiegers) will be able to join. Assaults should be transformed into a full-fledged battle; the battlefield would have a base combat width of three, while every breach will give an additional pip of combat width to the battlefield (up until 3, as it currently is), making overwhelming the garrison somewhat easier. As this would be an assault on the walls, cavalry would not be able to participate, while attacking artillery suffers -50% fire damage (defending artillery remains unhindered). Additionally, without a breach in the walls, the garrison gets a -33% Shock and Fire Damage Received bonus (together I think this is all more intuitive than the current way breaches are handled).

Professionalism and Army Doctrine

Professionalism was a nice addition. I liked the idea behind it – unfortunately I don’t think it was properly integrated with Army Tradition. First, I would like to recommend a slight reassignment of the bonuses associated with both (for the sake of space I’ll just list out what I believe to be the optimal setup in spoilers):

100 Army Tradition:
+10% Army Morale Recovery Speed
+25% Army Morale
+100% Army Drill Gain

100 Army Professionalism:
+25% Movement Speed
+25% Siege Ability

0 Army Professionalism:
-20% Mercenary Cost
+20% Available Mercenaries
+20% Looting Speed

100 Drilled/Regiment Professionalism:
+20% Fire/Shock Damage
-20% Fire/Shock Damage Received

In this, the AT Siege Ability is merged with the Army Professionalism Siege Ability, while Manpower Recovery is removed due to Professionalism’s late ability to regain troops from disbanded regiments, while it gains drill to make it more interactive with Professionalism.

Movement Speed was moved from subunits to the overall army, as it would better represent the formalization of supplies, routes, chain of command and communication, etc. And as an army only moves as fast as its slowest unit, it’s more effective there anyhow.

Looting and Mercenaries go hand in hand.

By the inverse, fire and shock have been moved from overall army professionalism to double down in individual units, as it’s here that individual unit drilling comes to shine.

Secondly, I would like to advocate that a unit’s Drill should not naturally decay during a war: not only is it a bit odd that armies wouldn’t take time to drill during wars, but the professionalism of a regiment gets hit enough whenever it needs to reinforce, so having it passively degrade over time during war is just kicking the player while they’re down. Additionally, I would like to advocate that the base gain of monthly drill be nerfed – perhaps down to 0.4? – at the cost of having professional units have their drill set to 20 (I.E Professional/Cuirassier/Artillery start out with 20 drill and will never dip below it), in addition to the aforementioned no passive decline during war.

Finally, I would to advocate for one final new feature: Army Doctrines. Between the manpower division, new unit categories, and mercenary and garrison overhauls, there’d be more need to offer the player the ability to specialize the focus of their military. There would be two ‘slots’ for possible doctrines you can adopt for your military; the first unlocked when you get your Professionalism to 40% and the second at 80%; you lose a slot should your professionalism dip below a slot’s threshold.

These slots can be filled with a card that provides two bonuses and one malus; say, for example, one card emphasizes professional soldiers, giving you +10% Professional Combat Ability and +25% Professional Manpower at the cost of -33% Conscript Manpower. States gain access to different cards as they advance through military tech; while your first card choice will be free when you unlock a slot for the first time, any subsequent shifts or readditions will cost you 25 Army Tradition; otherwise these cards cost nothing to maintain. Obviously retooling your army doctrines will become easier and more common late game when there’s a larger abundance of AT about, and the need to readjust strategies to meet particular opponent’s.

Overall I think that the combination of these changes will make Army Professionalism and Army Tradition somewhat better integrated, will give a little more sensibility to the modifiers floating about between them, and offer the player more control over the way they want to steer their military. Additionally, it will make drill somewhat more sensible.

Army and Naval Maintenance

(Thanks to @Dakkadakka127 for coming up with the idea for doing something with maintenance.)

Army Maintenance is fine as it is, but I feel it has the potential for a little more depth; so for this, I would like to present a simple proposal for a simple change to it: have the Army Maintenance slider max out at 200% rather than 100%. Now, 100% would still stand as is: your army’s morale maxes out there, and it’s what your maintenance slider jumps to when you declare war. However, going above 100% will start to give your army bonuses, scaling up to 200% - I envision the benefits looking something like this maxed out:

+10% Army Morale Recovery Speed
+20% Movement Speed
+25% Reinforce Speed
-25% Land Attrition
+50% Army Drill Gain

This will both help compliment and make tall and defensive gameplay more rewarding without not being worthwhile to wide or blobbers – it will, additionally, act as a moneysink that is not punitive. By a similar vein, Naval maintenance can also be extended as such to give:

+1 Yearly Navy Tradition
+5% Ship Durability
-25% Sailor Maintenance
-25% Naval Attrition

Transport Capacity

Transports, frankly, need to be axed – as long as they persist, the issues Naval Warfare, the AI’s handling of it, and the number of troops that can be shipped across the world via boat will not be able to be fixed or improved. As I’m aware this is a rather bombastic declaration, I’ll obviously explain myself.

First and foremost: having a dedicated transport category is not only completely ahistorical, but it leads to utterly gamey strategies: piling tens of thousands of troops onto a transport-only fleet and having it sail safely across to anywhere while your actual fighting ships are busy keeping your opponent’s navies and ports tied down. This not only makes naval invasions and transporting tens of thousands of troops across the world stultifying easy and generally risk free, but it also means that the AI will not be able to manage it nearly as effectively; they can’t game the system as well as a player, and they’re prone to grouping all of their ships into one or a few large doomstacks. Naval doomstacks themselves aren’t an inherent problem, per se, but when the metagame surrounding them promotes a strategy of there not really being a risk in having a lot of transports and most of the battles just dissolve into a slug-throwing match between heavies and the occasional galley, there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Secondly, it’s been a well-established axiom that not only AI has been ineffective at managing AI naval invasions, but the sheer number of troops you can transport halfway across the world is a little… unrealistic and out of the timeframe, and it fails to represent one of the main limits on European colonization during this period. Nevermind having to transport all those troops on specifically designated transports.

So, say Transports are axed; what then? Well, the next and most obvious step would be to not have a dedicated transport class, and rather have the three remaining ship classes all carry certain amount of troops. Keeping in mind the different unit sizes now, I’d like to propose the numbers below:

625 Transport Capacity for a Heavy, 375 for a Light, and 500 for a Galley.

This would offer numerous benefits:

1): It would be an effective bar on overseas empire-building without being hardcoded or inherent: shipping 20000 troops around the Cape of Good Hope won’t be an easy endeavor anymore, but also wouldn’t be impossible.

2): Maneuvering large armies across inland seas would still be viable. Between the cheapness of Galleys and their moderate transport capacity, large scale naval-invasions across the Mediterranean, Baltic and East Asia seas would still be possible as it happened historically, especially considering that Transports would no longer be taking up Forcelimit (and already they have the least utility of all ship classes, as they can’t even Hunt Pirates).

3): It would encourage more historical overseas expedition armies: likely smaller armies of professional units, mostly infantry, that would need to bolster their numbers by recruiting local mercenaries/tribes.

4): Naval battles would no longer be without risk beyond the loss of ships: if a ship is lost in battle, so are the amount troops it was ferrying. However, same principle applies to the opposite: no longer will a transport fleet be doomed if they run into a squadron of heavies.

Galley Tradepower

The second change to naval warfare I’d like to advocate are for Galleys to be able to protect trade (and carry out the missions without Light Ships): this would not only give a needed buff to the merchant republics of the Mediterranean (or just trade in the inland seas in general), but be perfectly historical: what constitutes as Galleys were used more frequently as trade ships throughout the EU4’s timeperiod than Light Ships for the first few centuries of the game.

Of course, with Galleys being cheaper, requiring less sailors, getting combat bonuses from inland seas, and finally having a larger transport capacity, that means they could potentially become completely broken by this – I will address the ways to prevent this below.

First, the base tradepower from a galley should be in increments of 0.25: from a Galley giving 0.25 Tradepower to an Archipelago Frigate giving 1.50 Tradepower – less than a third of the Great Frigate’s Tradepower.

Light Ship Buff

As for Light Ships – the second part to ensuring better naval balance – they’re in need of a buff. Now, I’m not advocating that a fleet of solely light ships should be a viable military strategy, but the issue remains that naval warfare is simply reduced to spam heavies (or galleys in inland), get them into a doomstack or two, have them slug it out and worry about your armies until the popup notifies you that the battle’s over. Additionally, light ships, much like transports, are incredibly easy to butcher, and putting them into a fleet intended for battle will almost invariably either have them being destroyed or captured – when historically they weren’t just dead weight in battles.

The game tries to stimulate their role by giving them double the tactical speed of a heavy, but it’s still not enough to keep in them in the fight for an extended period of time when a Great Frigate has just a little more than a third of the hull and only a fourth of the guns of the Threedecker (24/30 to 60/120). The increments in the ship hull size for light ships follow that of heavies: the last three models have double the incremental increases in hull size of the first three. Only problem being that while the heavies go by fives and then tens, the light ships go by twos and fours: even more damaging is that the Early Carrack has twenty hull, and the Barque only eight: the disparity becomes inconsolable after the Carrack/Caravel. I would personally recommend increasing the light ship hull increments to three/six: so that while the Barque still starts off with only eight hull, the Great Frigate would end with thirty-two hull: only eight points higher than what it was, but now it can actually last in battle (and gives them a different variation from Galleys).

Guns are the same: Heavies follow the same pattern of ten-twenty (with the Early Carrack having forty guns), while Light Ships go by two and a half-five (as the game can’t process 2.50 for guns, three-two was the variation for the first two jumps). For this, I would recommend increasing the light ship gun increments to four-eight; the Great Frigate would end up carrying forty-two guns, barely over a third of the Threedecker’s complement and more in line with the Heavy Frigate’s description of ‘Two decked vessels normally carrying about 40 guns’ (it only gets 25). These would be minor buffs – only eight more hull and twelve more guns – but it would actually allow light ships to be competitive, and would make Light Ship Combat Ability (which a number of trade-heavy nations get) actually meaningful, instead of just being a false variable.

Sea Terrain:

(A huge thanks to @Fluffy_Fishy for helping me develop this idea and coming up with most of the framework.)

As for sea tiles – my third idea for better balance – I would like to present a proposal to instead shake up the current system to hopefully add more some more depth to naval battles, as well as some other mechanics related to naval maneuverings. There would be five aspects to this rework of naval terrain: first would be reworking engagement width to be both visible in naval combat panel in the same way that combat width is in land combat, and to make engagement width both smaller at gamestart while having it increase as with dip tech.

Second would be having sea tiles have terrains. This is, admittedly, more difficult than assigning land terrain: there’s only so many defining geographical differences you can have in water where ships would be willing to fight. However, I do think it is possible with two geographic features: tide and depth. Both would binary in their variation: you can have a strong tide or a calm tide, and the water can either be shallow or deep. A strong tide penalizes the attacking fleet’s role in the same way that hills/mountains crossing does, while a shallow depth reduces Engagement in the same way that hills and mountains used to. Whereas a calm tide or deep depth (or the better equivalency that is come up for this part) would offer no defensive bonuses.

Third would be the expansion of inland sea – not in the sense of designating more provinces as inland (though I do believe that needs to be done for some areas as well should nothing change), but mechanically. This would involve expanding Inland Sea from a binary modifier to a four-tier provincial modifier for coast in general, which would look something like this:

Open Sea: This would be the default modifier for any sea tile that is not next to a land province: no penalties to engagement width, while Galleys receive a moderate combat malus.

Coast: This would be the default modifier for any sea tile that is next to a land province: no penalties to engagement width, but it does give a small bonus to the combat power of Light Ships, and to the privateer efficiency of any fleet in it.

Inland Coast: This would be a modifier for certain areas of coastal sea tiles to designate areas where galley combat was more predominant – as it is currently, the Mediterranean, Baltic Sea, sea of Japan and Chinese coast, etc. This gives a minor penalty to engagement width, a small bonus to the combat power of Light Ships and Galleys, and a small boost to both the tradepower of any galleys and the privateer efficiency of any fleet in the tile.

Harsh Coast: This would be a modifier for only a few provinces, mainly to represent coastlines that historically were particularly harsh, imposing or shallow – such as North Africa or Scotland and Norway. This gives a moderate penalty to engagement width, a moderate combat bonus to Light Ships, a small bonus to the tradepower of Galleys, and a moderate bonus to the privateer efficiency of navies in these tiles.

Fourth would be the expansion of climate to affect sea tiles. Like with coast, there would be four degrees of climate:

Artic: This is the harshest climate for sea tiles, which gives a moderate increase to both naval attrition and sailor maintenance for all ships within, in addition to giving a malus to local movement speed.

Temperate: This is the default temperature, with no bonuses or maluses.

Warm: The only difference this climate has from Temperate is that it gives a bonus local movement speed.

Tropical: This climate gives a minor bonus to local movement speed, but also gives a minor increase to sailor maintenance and a moderate increase to naval attrition.

Fifth and final would be expanding the barely used Trade Winds mechanics ingame into something that affects all provinces as a general wind modifier; unlike the prior two, there are only three variants for this.

Strong Winds: This would largely represent areas of the world that were affected by trade winds, or just had an unusually strong wind speed; this would give a moderate bonus to local movements speed, as well as a minor increase to light ship combat strength.

Moderate Winds: This would be the default for most provinces – no bonuses or maluses.

Weak Winds: This would largely be restricted to areas that would be classified as being inland seas, giving a minor malus to movement speed and Heavy Ship combat power, as well as a moderate combat bonus to Galleys.

The sum of all this is simple, in spite of my verbosity: every naval tile would now have a terrain that might offer some defensive bonuses, as well as three different modifiers that may affect the performance of certain ships, attrition, unit speed, trade power, and privateer efficiency of those in them. This would result in some more intuitive, nuanced, balanced and varied naval gameplay – though how some missions like protect trade and privateer efficiency are handled would have to be changed (ideal so that fleets move only within tiles that optimize their output for their particular mission).

Naval Techgroups

Finally, my last suggestion for naval warfare is something I would describe as being a nice bonus: have the Tech Groups apply to naval units as well: China should not be building Carracks in 1444. Having different ship groups – albeit I think later ship models need to be universal – and ship progression would offer a number of benefits:

1): It would make selling ships more meaningful.

2): It would allow for primitives to get transports in the form of starting out with galley-only techgroups, as having different ship sets and progression paths for different techgroups would allow for some galley-only tech starts.

3): It would help better represent historical European colonization by giving them slightly stronger ship models early on, without needing to do railroady stuff like free cores.

4): Further developments could be made to affect stuff like attrition rate; a flat-bottomed junk is not going to be nearly as effective as crossing an ocean as a caravel.

I’d personally advise Western/Eastern/Anatolian sharing a naval group, Muslim/East African/Indian sharing another, Chinese/Nomadic sharing a third, and the American/remaining African groups sharing the fourth.

Possible Example:

Western-Eastern-Anatolian:
H: Cog, Carrack, Galleon, War Galleon, Twodecker, Threedecker
L: Hulk, Caravel, Round Caravel, Frigate, Heavy Frigate, Great Frigate
G: Galley, War Galley, Galleass, Galiot, Chebeck, Brigantine

Chinese-Nomadic:
H: Fuchuan Junk, Panokseon, Geobukseon, War Junk, Twodecker, Threedecker
L: Guangchuan Junk, Sekibune, Shuinsen, Lorcha, Pinisi, Great Frigate
G: Shachuan Junk, Bune, Atakebune, Tekkosen, Benzaisen, Brigantine

Afro-American:
H: Galleon, War Galleon, Twodecker, Threedecker
L: Round Caravel, Frigate, Heavy Frigate, Great Frigate
G: Canoe, War Canoe, Galleass, Galiot, Chebeck, Brigantine

Etc.

---

Well, if you made it to the end of this – all I have to say is thank you for making what was likely a sizeable investment of your time to read through it, and that this is the sum of roughly half a year of thinking about and talking with other players on how warfare in EU4 can be improved, and an attempt to strike an honest balance between historicity, realism and gameplay.
 

This thread is more than 5 months old.

It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose. If you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.

Bearjuden

Major
77 Badges
Jan 7, 2014
609
19
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
I’m just going to point out that skirmishers usually functioned as a screen, in front of the main infantry.

This is 100% true, but I have no ideas on how to model the "starting out screening before pulling back and mingling amongst the main battle lines to fire on their troops as the fight heats up" that would be more accurate without allowing manual control of battle tactics, something I adamantly oppose, unless maybe you have some "trigger point" that swaps the front and middle rows (which seems like a weird solution to me). And that's all without considering the complexities of possibly using much heavier concentrations of skirmishers that states were sometimes wont to do, especially in the colonies. This is amongst the reasons I brought up the issue. If you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
 

Heradite

Captain
95 Badges
Aug 7, 2007
391
77
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
I like a lot of this but I have to say:

Transport Capacity

Transports, frankly, need to be axed – as long as they persist, the issues Naval Warfare, the AI’s handling of it, and the number of troops that can be shipped across the world via boat will not be able to be fixed or improved. As I’m aware this is a rather bombastic declaration, I’ll obviously explain myself.

First and foremost: having a dedicated transport category is not only completely ahistorical, but it leads to utterly gamey strategies: piling tens of thousands of troops onto a transport-only fleet and having it sail safely across to anywhere while your actual fighting ships are busy keeping your opponent’s navies and ports tied down. This not only makes naval invasions and transporting tens of thousands of troops across the world stultifying easy and generally risk free, but it also means that the AI will not be able to manage it nearly as effectively; they can’t game the system as well as a player, and they’re prone to grouping all of their ships into one or a few large doomstacks. Naval doomstacks themselves aren’t an inherent problem, per se, but when the metagame surrounding them promotes a strategy of there not really being a risk in having a lot of transports and most of the battles just dissolve into a slug-throwing match between heavies and the occasional galley, there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Secondly, it’s been a well-established axiom that not only AI has been ineffective at managing AI naval invasions, but the sheer number of troops you can transport halfway across the world is a little… unrealistic and out of the timeframe, and it fails to represent one of the main limits on European colonization during this period. Nevermind having to transport all those troops on specifically designated transports.

So, say Transports are axed; what then? Well, the next and most obvious step would be to not have a dedicated transport class, and rather have the three remaining ship classes all carry certain amount of troops. Keeping in mind the different unit sizes now, I’d like to propose the numbers below:

625 Transport Capacity for a Heavy, 375 for a Light, and 500 for a Galley.

This would offer numerous benefits:

1): It would be an effective bar on overseas empire-building without being hardcoded or inherent: shipping 20000 troops around the Cape of Good Hope won’t be an easy endeavor anymore, but also wouldn’t be impossible.

2): Maneuvering large armies across inland seas would still be viable. Between the cheapness of Galleys and their moderate transport capacity, large scale naval-invasions across the Mediterranean, Baltic and East Asia seas would still be possible as it happened historically, especially considering that Transports would no longer be taking up Forcelimit (and already they have the least utility of all ship classes, as they can’t even Hunt Pirates).

3): It would encourage more historical overseas expedition armies: likely smaller armies of professional units, mostly infantry, that would need to bolster their numbers by recruiting local mercenaries/tribes.

4): Naval battles would no longer be without risk beyond the loss of ships: if a ship is lost in battle, so are the amount troops it was ferrying. However, same principle applies to the opposite: no longer will a transport fleet be doomed if they run into a squadron of heavies.

I feel like the AI would struggle EVEN more with this and I feel it's more confusing for the player.

My counter-suggestion:

There are two types of seas. With inland seas, to transport troops from one port to another port, you don't need any ships. The troops will act like the rebel troops do: with a timer. All you have to do is wait for your the timer to fill up to see the troops move across inland seas. Of course, ships can block troops from moving between provinces so you'll still want a fleet in the ocean to ensure safe passage.

A crossing can still take attrition and there should obviously be a combat penalty for crossing an inland sea if there's enemy troops on the other side.

If you want, you can maybe add a limit to how many troops can be moved at a time based on diplomatic technology so that you can only move say 10k troops early game but by late game a 30k troop stack can move at a time.

With larger oceans, maybe we can keep the idea of fleets acting as transports but it's 1k troop per ship (whether it's heavy or light, no galleys) and that's it. Artillery can only travel on heavy ships (cause they sink light ships :p).

The AI may struggle to do long sea invasions still but now it should be able to easily handle naval invasions within the Mediterranean and English channel and the North Sea (and even the Black Sea)! Now the English won't be as useless allies within the continent! :p
 

Martynios

Raadspensionaris
15 Badges
May 1, 2016
1.816
739
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
I like a lot of this but I have to say:



I feel like the AI would struggle EVEN more with this and I feel it's more confusing for the player.

My counter-suggestion:

There are two types of seas. With inland seas, to transport troops from one port to another port, you don't need any ships. The troops will act like the rebel troops do: with a timer. All you have to do is wait for your the timer to fill up to see the troops move across inland seas. Of course, ships can block troops from moving between provinces so you'll still want a fleet in the ocean to ensure safe passage.

A crossing can still take attrition and there should obviously be a combat penalty for crossing an inland sea if there's enemy troops on the other side.

If you want, you can maybe add a limit to how many troops can be moved at a time based on diplomatic technology so that you can only move say 10k troops early game but by late game a 30k troop stack can move at a time.

With larger oceans, maybe we can keep the idea of fleets acting as transports but it's 1k troop per ship (whether it's heavy or light, no galleys) and that's it. Artillery can only travel on heavy ships (cause they sink light ships :p).

The AI may struggle to do long sea invasions still but now it should be able to easily handle naval invasions within the Mediterranean and English channel and the North Sea (and even the Black Sea)! Now the English won't be as useless allies within the continent! :p
Troop transport in the mediterranean wasn’t quite that easy.
 

Heradite

Captain
95 Badges
Aug 7, 2007
391
77
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
Troop transport in the mediterranean wasn’t quite that easy.

Well until we can have an AI that can use a more complicated system really well, let's aim for gameplay it can understand and use well even if it's not historically accurate.
 

Bearjuden

Major
77 Badges
Jan 7, 2014
609
19
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
The AI may struggle to do long sea invasions still but now it should be able to easily handle naval invasions within the Mediterranean and English channel and the North Sea (and even the Black Sea)! Now the English won't be as useless allies within the continent! :p

This would also permit the French to invade England even if they had not a single ship with which to challenge English naval supremacy. Even the idea where they connected Calais to Kent with a strait at least permitted the English to have at least a fighting chance of blocking that. I vote nay.

Artillery can only travel on heavy ships (cause they sink light ships :p).

This is...not how that worked. Light ships are light on manpower because they store trade goods. They are plenty capable of hauling some cannons.
 

Heradite

Captain
95 Badges
Aug 7, 2007
391
77
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
This would also permit the French to invade England even if they had not a single ship with which to challenge English naval supremacy. Even the idea where they connected Calais to Kent with a straight at least permitted the English to have at least a fighting chance of blocking that. I vote nay.

My idea specifically states that you can use your ships to block invasions. So all the English have to do is park a couple ships along the channel and the French can't invade.
 

Bearjuden

Major
77 Badges
Jan 7, 2014
609
19
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
My idea specifically states that you can use your ships to block invasions. So all the English have to do is park a couple ships along the channel and the French can't invade.

Ah, missed that. So you want a strait. I mean you didn't tie it into any two specific provinces but it would be far easier to reuse that mechanic than to make a new one, or even to adapt one. Straits are easy to make compared to the work needed to figure out what you described.

Unfortunately I think they said a while ago that they tried that but the naval AI refused to block the strait and kept going off to fight other navies, and as a result France kept invading England (I know you said it for other places too but the same issues would logically arise if you say connected Valencia to the Baleares). It would be nice if it worked but if they're going to sink a ton of time into making the naval AI work properly I'd rather they did it with the end goal of making the AI not need a shortcut (like straits). And I don't see how the issues with naval AI would be avoided by using the different system over straits.
 

Heradite

Captain
95 Badges
Aug 7, 2007
391
77
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
Ah, missed that. So you want a strait. I mean you didn't tie it into any two specific provinces but it would be far easier to reuse that mechanic than to make a new one, or even to adapt one. Straits are easy to make compared to the work needed to figure out what you described.

Unfortunately I think they said a while ago that they tried that but the naval AI refused to block the strait and kept going off to fight other navies, and as a result France kept invading England (I know you said it for other places too but the same issues would logically arise if you say connected Valencia to the Baleares). It would be nice if it worked but if they're going to sink a ton of time into making the naval AI work properly I'd rather they did it with the end goal of making the AI not need a shortcut (like straits). And I don't see how the issues with naval AI would be avoided by using the different system over straits.

It wouldn't necessarily be a shortcut for just the AI since the player would be under the same system but that's fair.

I do think the system proposed in the OP is still too complicated for both the AI and players though hence my counter-suggestion. :)
 

BeyondExpectation

Major
14 Badges
Apr 3, 2016
749
303
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
Not in any way degenerating the legitimate criticisms people have of the warfare system, but what has always really annoyed me is the way artillery works. First off, you need 1,000 men to man a single . . . canon? Group of cannons? If the former, that's absurd. If the latter, it's also absurd that we can't field just one canon, say around ~1500 A.D. when it could easily be the difference between winning a siege (and subsequently a war) and losing one.

I don't have anything near a working alternate system, but I do have a bunch of things I'd like to see instead of what we've got now.

Artillery should cost about 10 manpower, but have two massive drawbacks; at low tech levels, they move extremely slowly (at high they just move slightly slowly) and, should you lose a battle with an army containing some, the winning side gains the artillery to simulate captured weaponry, making it more convenient to let your enemies build it and capture it yourself should such a thing be within your capability. Also, artillery, once built, should remain the same unit type throughout its life; you have to built your latest make of cannons from scratch.

That would actually be realistic, instead of the current system that treats artillery as a kind of soldier equivalent to infantry and cavalry.
 

Zak Preston

Zakharia
73 Badges
Aug 16, 2014
1.643
2.021
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Imperator: Rome
  • War of the Roses
What I really hate about EU4 economics is that resources are kinda useless and provide only token influence: a nation without any single copper and iron mine can still produce tons of artillery, a nation without wool or cloth can still equip all it's soldiers with uniforms and so it goes.
Just imagine how deeper the game could become if people had to actually care about supplying their armies with basic needs and trade with other nations for resources. The warfare would also become more sensible: you might want to occupy that iron mine ASAP to force your enemy hire and maintain soldiers at an increased price.
 

Martynios

Raadspensionaris
15 Badges
May 1, 2016
1.816
739
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
What I really hate about EU4 economics is that resources are kinda useless and provide only token influence: a nation without any single copper and iron mine can still produce tons of artillery, a nation without wool or cloth can still equip all it's soldiers with uniforms and so it goes.
Just imagine how deeper the game could become if people had to actually care about supplying their armies with basic needs and trade with other nations for resources. The warfare would also become more sensible: you might want to occupy that iron mine ASAP to force your enemy hire and maintain soldiers at an increased price.
That would be so arcade-y and unrealistic...
 

Grand Historian

Pretentious Username
77 Badges
May 13, 2014
5.225
9.142
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
Not in any way degenerating the legitimate criticisms people have of the warfare system, but what has always really annoyed me is the way artillery works. First off, you need 1,000 men to man a single . . . canon? Group of cannons? If the former, that's absurd. If the latter, it's also absurd that we can't field just one canon, say around ~1500 A.D. when it could easily be the difference between winning a siege (and subsequently a war) and losing one.

Artillery Regiments are more than one cannon - while the number was doubtlessly decided to just maintain consistency with the other regiments, it's actually historically close to the numbers in a Napoleonic artillery brigade.
 

Bearjuden

Major
77 Badges
Jan 7, 2014
609
19
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
If the latter, it's also absurd that we can't field just one canon, say around ~1500 A.D. when it could easily be the difference between winning a siege (and subsequently a war) and losing one.

I have seen proposed (and am down for) a cannon available at game start with no combat pips (too big to be useful for combat) but which can then provide siege help. But one cannon probably wouldn't be useful in most circumstances, after all people started developing defenses specifically to stop cannons pretty quickly. (plus it may be frustrating to manage, though of course if they can figure out how to do that then I can never say no to more historical gameplay).

Having to rebuild all your cannons sounds like too much of a pain though, especially for smaller nations. Although I guess maybe that's the point? I dunno'.

a nation without any single copper and iron mine can still produce tons of artillery, a nation without wool or cloth can still equip all it's soldiers with uniforms and so it goes.

This is why they traded for that stuff? So in turn that's what the trade system is for.
 
Last edited:

FleetingRain

General
57 Badges
Aug 2, 2014
2.454
2.514
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
100% behind the Mercenary ideas. In fact, it's exactly what I had thought of months ago but never properly suggested.

Also, you never mentioned *proper* land combat in the suggestion. I guess you expect the new unit types would be enough, then? Because I've been thinking letting cavalry (or in this case, heavy cavalry) flank the back row would be a proper rebalance to the current three types too.


but it would actually allow light ships to be competitive, and would make Light Ship Combat Ability (which a number of trade-heavy nations get) actually meaningful, instead of just being a false variable.

This is something I could never get a proper confirmation, but I remember reading in the wiki that ship CA also affects their tradepower, so this modifier is actually useful (in peacetime, but still).
 

Grand Historian

Pretentious Username
77 Badges
May 13, 2014
5.225
9.142
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
100% behind the Mercenary ideas. In fact, it's exactly what I had thought of months ago but never properly suggested.

Great minds think alike :)

Also, you never mentioned *proper* land combat in the suggestion. I guess you expect the new unit types would be enough, then? Because I've been thinking letting cavalry (or in this case, heavy cavalry) flank the back row would be a proper rebalance to the current three types too.

Cavalry backrow flanking was brought up a page or two into the thread - I'll go back and edit the OP eventually to incorporate some of the criticisms and new ideas.

This is something I could never get a proper confirmation, but I remember reading in the wiki that ship CA also affects their tradepower, so this modifier is actually useful (in peacetime, but still).

Really? If that's the case, then that means Paradox kind of acknowledged how unknown it was by making Trade Ship Power a separate bonus (Venice's age ability).
 

Archangel Dino

Second Lieutenant
41 Badges
May 4, 2017
110
0
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
While I didn't read the entire wall of text, I will admit that in a game that is centered around warfare and empire-building, you'd expect warfare to be a bit more in-depth. I would like to see a bit more emphasis placed on making warfare a more complex component with flanks, possibly different unit types, and other terrain/combat modifiers.
 

theJalden

Captain
48 Badges
Dec 7, 2013
349
430
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • War of the Roses
  • Victoria 2
Splendid ideas all. I really like the ideas about adding more unit types. I've also seen suggestions for Light/Heavy divisions for infantry and cavalry units. I had a thought that sliders could be used to set the heavy/light ratios for those units. (heavy; Morale, shock damage received vs light:movement speed, cost) might be good to trade off. I've also seen proposals for separating siege weapons from artillery combat units.

Mercs are so bad right now it's almost game-breaking. As it stands they're just the same as regulars, but don't cost manpower, often the scarcer resource in any given campaign. Any change to them would be a change worth doing.

Naval suggestions are good. I've said as much myself in a suggestion I made years ago. A bit more variation on naval terrain would be great.

I've had a few thoughts myself about military, and especially on a potential supply system. Might piggyback onto this thread with a full explanation. I've also though about an "encamp army" mechanism, scrapping the "force limit" and changing up Leaders... teleporting generals can lead to some weird strategies, and having only 2-3 military leaders gets really annoying for playing a large country.
 

Martynios

Raadspensionaris
15 Badges
May 1, 2016
1.816
739
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
Artillery Regiments are more than one cannon - while the number was doubtlessly decided to just maintain consistency with the other regiments, it's actually historically close to the numbers in a Napoleonic artillery brigade.
The number of artillery regiments in the average EU4 army however isn't near close to historical levels, even Napoleonic. I suppose the high number of artillery is one problem we should aim to solve in this thread.
 

Martynios

Raadspensionaris
15 Badges
May 1, 2016
1.816
739
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
Before adding new unit types, shouldn't we first delve into the types that actually existed in history?

As to division into conscripts and professionals:
  • Are conscripts really that generic? In western Europe (I have little knowledge on warfare east of Germany), conscripts would only represent the declining feudal levies of the very early game, the revolutionary-style mass armies of the very late game and the occasional city-defending militia or filthy peasants/rebels/heroic freedom fighters (depending on the perspective). Does this justify having them as a very prominent unit type?
  • Where would you draw the line between professionals and mercenaries? Are the Burgundian ordinance companies mercenaries? Hungary's Black Army? The soldiers of Maurice of Nassau? Regiments like the Irish 'Wild Geese'?

While I think areas would make some companies too exclusive, it is a fair point - maybe make it so that a mercenary company can belong to more than one region and then draw from the manpower pool of the region it's recruited in?

Or perhaps just make like 4-5 different Swiss companies. :p

Some intrinsic bonuses to mercenaries would be nice, but I'm afraid that might give nations that can monopolize them a bit of an unfair advantage? If not, then I don't see any reason why not.
How about differentiating mercenary territory into two types: origin and recruitment? To use the Swiss example again:
There would be multiple Swiss companies, each drawing from the mercenary manpower of the Swiss area. They can be recruited in a large territory, maybe even all of Italy, Iberia, Spain and Germany. The Swiss companies would refuse to fight each other and Switzerland.

This would also make monopolising a non-issue, making it a possibility to give different merenary bands different bonuses, to make hiring one company instead fo another a strategic choice. For example, the Swiss could have some pretty hefty infantry CA, Hungarian Hussars could enjoy increased flanking ability, Landsknechts decreased shock damage taken, etc.

I think of it as being less extra pay and more just making sure that your armies are sufficiently equipped, always paid on time, have better rations, etc. - armies not meeting those standards was endemic during this period.
If it's just sufficient, not extra, why wouldn't it just be 100%?

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean with this - basically it would be easier to transport larger armies across inland seas and short distances due to galleys having better transport capacity and being competent in coasts, but it will be more difficult over large distances due to less transport capacities (making you rely on vanguards of professionals), galleys being penalized in open seas, and heavies costing more.
As has been pointed out by others, this would only turn galleys into the new transports, with the difference that they don't need an escort in the mediterranean.
 

Grand Historian

Pretentious Username
77 Badges
May 13, 2014
5.225
9.142
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
Before adding new unit types, shouldn't we first delve into the types that actually existed in history?

As to division into conscripts and professionals:
  • Are conscripts really that generic? In western Europe (I have little knowledge on warfare east of Germany), conscripts would only represent the declining feudal levies of the very early game, the revolutionary-style mass armies of the very late game and the occasional city-defending militia or filthy peasants/rebels/heroic freedom fighters (depending on the perspective). Does this justify having them as a very prominent unit type?
  • Where would you draw the line between professionals and mercenaries? Are the Burgundian ordinance companies mercenaries? Hungary's Black Army? The soldiers of Maurice of Nassau? Regiments like the Irish 'Wild Geese'?

Aside from Feudal Levies, Garrison troops, etc, most of the English Army prior to the Ironsides were 'unprofessional' (certainly not retained by the state in the same way Professionals were), nevermind the auxiliary Tercio that Spain frequently employed to bolster their own armies. And that's just Western Europe you're bringing up, and not RotW - most Chinese armies were overwhelmingly what would qualify as conscripts, the Ashigaru of Japan, or most of the Ottoman army, etc.

As for the line between professionals and mercenaries, I fail to see how the Gendarme qualify as Mercenaries, while the rest of those very specific examples could qualify either as professional troops retained by the state, or perhaps just do what CKII did and have certain mercenary companies exclusive to specific nations that can be raised and maintained at cheaper levels (a la Varangians, which describes the Black Army and Wild Geese nicely). Either way, I think both of these are nonissues.

How about differentiating mercenary territory into two types: origin and recruitment? To use the Swiss example again:
There would be multiple Swiss companies, each drawing from the mercenary manpower of the Swiss area. They can be recruited in a large territory, maybe even all of Italy, Iberia, Spain and Germany. The Swiss companies would refuse to fight each other and Switzerland.

This would also make monopolising a non-issue, making it a possibility to give different merenary bands different bonuses, to make hiring one company instead fo another a strategic choice. For example, the Swiss could have some pretty hefty infantry CA, Hungarian Hussars could enjoy increased flanking ability, Landsknechts decreased shock damage taken, etc.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but I still can't get behind areas due to the manpower constraints.

If it's just sufficient, not extra, why wouldn't it just be 100%?

Because then 50% would be just sufficient, and saying you're only giving your armies half of 100% to function fully doesn't sound right.

As has been pointed out by others, this would only turn galleys into the new transports, with the difference that they don't need an escort in the mediterranean.

So, like things actually were in the Mediterranean?

But as I also pointed out earlier - these are all just numbers that can be changed as need be. Why bring it up now?
 
Last edited: