For rulers, consorts, and heirs you could have both. Age and health: healthy, sick, incapable, and dying. This would make players know if they should hurry up and declare a war and it would also make it easier to predict succession wars.
-
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.
Oh, I'm not advocating the removal of age, just as it being the determinate factor. Keeping age around would be beneficial as it can decrease a character's health value at certain benchmarks.
I agree with this. I'd like to see more diversified units. I know people keep saying "but EU4 is meant to be an abstraction" but that isn't an excuse to make the game bland and boring.
Cavalry doesn't fit a role in the game as it did historically. It's just another copy-and-paste Infantry that's more expensive with a "Flanking ability".
I'd love to see Light/Heavy Infantry and Light/Heavy Cavalry fitting specific roles to use for specific scenarios.
It is not a sin for a game developer to use ideas from one game of theirs to put into another. I think both CK2 and HOI4 have a lot of cool ideas that can be used for EU4.
The thing about cavalry in EU4 time, is that actually vast majority of it was light cavalry, and vast majority of the stuff they did had little to do with actual battles.
Just look at the Ottoman armies, they were full of light cavalry that would go around the enemy and raid and cause all kinds of problems, forcing them to split and worry about defending many spots instead of focusing on just one.
Really there should be some kind of battle if not strategic penalty if you dont have enough of it, or fight an enemy who has a huge advantage over you.
So IMO there should be heavy cavalry, high defenses, high cost (kinda like current cavalry), medium cavalry (which is a mix between the other two, also affordable combat cavalry for most people, costs less than heavy, slightly more than infantry), and light cavalry, which is essentially mounted skirmishers; the trick is giving light cavalry some kind of role/significance that isnt necessarily the amount of damage inflicted in battle (because as i mentioned that wasnt their primary focus/role).
Just look at the Ottoman armies, they were full of light cavalry that would go around the enemy and raid and cause all kinds of problems, forcing them to split and worry about defending many spots instead of focusing on just one.
Really there should be some kind of battle if not strategic penalty if you dont have enough of it, or fight an enemy who has a huge advantage over you.
So IMO there should be heavy cavalry, high defenses, high cost (kinda like current cavalry), medium cavalry (which is a mix between the other two, also affordable combat cavalry for most people, costs less than heavy, slightly more than infantry), and light cavalry, which is essentially mounted skirmishers; the trick is giving light cavalry some kind of role/significance that isnt necessarily the amount of damage inflicted in battle (because as i mentioned that wasnt their primary focus/role).
Renaissance time was the golden era for the heavy cavalry. Asians used mostly light cavalry, heavy cavalry was common for Europe btw.
And after that, cavalry was key for Napoleonic era as well! You should've mass infantry for countering cavalry but then artillery explodes that mass.
I'm not a fan of having both light and heavy cavalry but cavalry should be more important late game for sure.
At EU start date knights were a common sight in Europe, but light cavalry was still more numerous many times. Whats the starting cavalry unit type for France, iirc that was basically light cavalry raiders?
I guess you misunderstood. I didn't say there weren't light or medium cavalry. I just said for the game perspective, i don't think it's efficient to separate cavalry units into heavy and light.
The role of a light cavalry was limited for Europeans. Can you scout enemy units in EU4? It's more important for me to see cavalry regaining their value in the late game than seeing both heavy, medium and light cavalries as separate units.
The whole point of this thread is to talk about ideas to rework the warfare system; while there isnt a role for light cavalry right now, there could be one; they could have unique ability in combat (for example immune to cannon fire until first shock phase they engage in? or only take 50% of cannon fire damage) and they could have strategic (out of combat) bonus, of providing additional supply limit to the stack they are attached to (as historically one of the main purpose of light cavalry was to go through the country side and seize food etc). They should also have much higher looting value than heavy cavalry.
There are definitely ways in which you can differentiate them from heavy cavalry, in a strategically relevant manner.
There are also gameplay benefits from doing so, for example, differentiating the army composition quality (and capability) between a rich country and a poor one.
This is such an excellent thread, I especially like the merc part which stops merc spam and makes manpower more of a scare resource. Waging wars in mid-game has real cost then.
But just a question, why would anyone want to move the army slider to 200%, when it gives insignificant combat bonus? If it provides more morale/discipline, it might be worth it, else it is only useful for chasing down enemies before tech 15.
But just a question, why would anyone want to move the army slider to 200%, when it gives insignificant combat bonus? If it provides more morale/discipline, it might be worth it, else it is only useful for chasing down enemies before tech 15.
Units should be affected by something that actually affected their morale and tactics: distance from their non-colonial borders. Fighting far from home should slightly reduce a unit’s morale and tactics. Everyone knows soldiers fight more passionately when they’re on home soil than abroad and knowing the local area better than one’s enemy definitely aids in tactical decisions.
Furthermore, I’d like to see the implementation of storms that affect naval units. If naval units get caught in storms they should slow down their movement and take attrition that can devestate smaller vessels if the storm is bad enough. The Spanish Armanda and the failed Mongolian invasion of Japan prove the need for this random weather distaster that can completely change a game.
Furthermore, I’d like to see the implementation of storms that affect naval units. If naval units get caught in storms they should slow down their movement and take attrition that can devestate smaller vessels if the storm is bad enough. The Spanish Armanda and the failed Mongolian invasion of Japan prove the need for this random weather distaster that can completely change a game.
Last edited:
I definitely agree with your home soil idea. I always thought countries fighting on the defensive should have either a morale boost or a simple +1 friendly terrain bonus in combat.
STOP! COOKIE TIME