So Manchu cultural banner troops have to be the best thing ever, right?

[Vampiresoap]

The idea that they are bad is nonsense, aside from the upfront cost of +1 corruption. Do they reinforce slow? Yes, but they also have -50% maintenance along with their -50% reinforcement rate. This means that you can just flat out buy 2x as many banners for every regiment you want to replace, which negates every possible downside. Manchu isn't exactly rich enough to fill their force limit to begin with and everything else is just a pure bonus. The majority of battles you fight are going to have recovery time in between, including all rebels which basically become meaningless rather than significant manpower/ducat drains.

Not good in the mid/late game? I mean, does it even matter? When you have hundreds or thousands of regiments who cares about 30 banners? Arguing about whether they are good or not is meaningless when you can't have enough to matter either way. It's not like streltsy where you can just pretend that Russia has +10% infantry fire as an NI because 100% of their infantry are streltsy. Banners are clearly designed and intended as an early game power spike to help Manchu (among a dozen other things designed to help Manchu) and obviously won't scale unless the player wants to commit to genociding china.

Agree with a lot of points, but you can definitely have more than enough banners. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I could afford 60 banners in early-mid game by just doing some cheap cultural conversions with spare diplo points. (Like the ones that take only 22 diplo points). I took religious ideas thinking that I would be able to utilize the -25% cultural conversion bonus and just go ham on converting every province. But that wasn't even necessary, I got way more than enough banners to go with my artillery.

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

Janis don't have more drill, and they don't retain drill better. It's merely easier to get drill on them. The only thing it saves you is a bit of money and time; doesn't really make them more combat efficient, unless we are talking about an extreme case where, dunno, you have to go to war in exactly 6 months and only have this long to drill your troops starting from 0.

But the cost of drilling and the cost of recruitment is never really what makes the cost of a regiment; in by far the majority of cases it's going to be reinforcing cost, and janis' penalty here just makes them functionally worthless altogether.

I don't think you get my point. The comparison is not supposed to be units with the same drill, but janissaries with double drill because you get that for the same time and money, and especially time is a major constraint.

 

[I like wars and maps]

I enjoy my time on EU4s earth and needing to waste it on units taking forever to become full force again is not how I want to spend it.

 

[Ionxion]

This has always been the intended behaviour I believe, but yup that bonus is pretty miniscule.

To say that janis have -35% damage reduction is
a) to say that you will somehow be able to maintain 100% drill on average
b) ..that your other units willl have -25%, -25% vs -35% looks not as impressive.

Janis aren't an awful unit because of their bonuses though. They are an awful unit because of their cost.

If you're fighting a war and have no manpower building them seem alright to me as mercenaries now are really expensive sometimes 1000+ to build

 

[Jarvin]

If you're fighting a war and have no manpower building them seem alright to me as mercenaries now are really expensive sometimes 1000+ to build

If you have enough military mana to waste it on janissaries, then you might aswell use it on slackenings

 

[holyvigil]

Speaking from the perspective of warfare, unit efficiency and the likes:
There was never a point after 1.20 where banners/manchu would be legitimately useful.
Prior to 1.29 you had banners that were strong, but insanely difficult to micro properly and just extremely tedious to deal with.
Then in 1.29 Paradox looked at that, and decided that since banners were hard to micro and not really worth their price too often, that they should nerf them to the ground, leading to the current bonuses that banners have.

Then 1.30 came along, bringing in a much needed improvement to the UI, allowing you to at last reasonably recruit banners, but... it's still simply not worth the effort

-50% reinforcement is NOT pretty easy to deal with. In simple terms it means that whenever you use your banners for anything, they are effectively useless for a solid few months before they can be used again. While this is somewhat manageable if you are defending your own territory, when it comes to doing anything on hostile land, where further penalties to reinforcement rate and attrition apply, it just becomes a nightmare.
And obviously you have other downsides of using banners; you can't really merge them, they are useless for assaults...

And most importantly: while +5% disci, lower maintenance and less manpower cost looks cool on paper, and very much is cool for the first few decades... it's simply not anything amazing going into mid/late game, and that isn't even including the high cost of actually getting a decent number of banners

In general Paradox has systematically struggled to make special units that are actually worth anything.

Marines have always been almost useless. Janissaries are so bad that recruiting them is borderline nation ruining

The only usable special units in the game right now are raiputs and streltsy; but it's not like they are amazing either, they are just.. nice

Whoa Streltsy are great. Free units that are better than normal units. They are excellent and I wouldn't ever turn them down like I would Janissaries or Manchu banners.

 

[Jarvin]

Whoa Streltsy are great. Free units that are better than normal units. They are excellent and I wouldn't ever turn them down like I would Janissaries or Manchu banners.

Oh ye but 'excellent' is a strong word.
They are just as you say: normal units but with a miniscule bonus. Having +10% fire damage on your infantry is equivalent to having like what, 0.8% discipline? 0.9%?
Their best past is that you can get them from the magic button.

I honestly much preferred the version of streltsy where they were not hirable thru the macro menu, and only obtainable through the magic govt button.
It works better, because it has a historical flavor aspect of "russia has infinite troops" and gameplay wise it spares you from the pain of recruiting troops with no template.


But obviously: streltsy are in a decent spot right now.

 

[EarlKonrad]

+5% discipline
25% manpower to reinforce
-50% maintenance

Even the "downside", which is the -50% reinforcement rate, seems pretty easy to deal with.

This probably makes Manchu/Jurchen culture the best culture in the whole game.

PS: OH man, I just realized that Oda into Manchu is probably brokenly strong lol...

In theory banners are bloody fantasy! They are stronger, cheaper and more.manpower efficient versions of regular units. But in practice they are godawfuly bad.

Their main downside is that they are tied to hord nations that start with low dev and will struggle to get much right-culture Dev unless you culture convert.

Being a horde cheaper armies ducat wise isn't very meaningful but the manpower saving can be nice. However, if you are waiting around for your unit stacks to replenish then you are wasting away your main advantage which is speed, non-stop conquest and funding your empire by expansions. Again, regiments taking longer doesn't play into horde's strength and also doesn't solve its issues with money or ducats as you just can't wait for your regiments to refill in the middle of a war and waiting for them to refill outside of a war is just wasting precious time.

In my Manchu -> Yuan WC I did use banners early on but whenever I used them I'd have to consolide the regiments because waiting for them to naturally replenish is just painfully slow and they can never truly be the backbone of your army.

By far the best UU is the Russian one because you can get a lot of them and they come for free. Every single other UU is quite limited in how many you can field at once and the Revolutionary Guard comes in too late to even be worth discussing.

 

[Less2]

It works better, because it has a historical flavor aspect of "russia has infinite troops" and gameplay wise it spares you from the pain of recruiting troops with no template.

This is not "historical flavor", it is a complete and utter myth and lie that needs to stop being accepted at face value. By far the largest European population throughout the EU4 time period was in France, which was only eclipsed by the mid 19th century. Even post-EU4 the idea of Russia having infinite manpower was only perpetuated because of a lie invented by the Nazi leadership post-WW2 as an excuse to explain how they could be the bestest, smartest, greatest army in the world led by people who did everything right and still lose to the Soviet Union which was assumed to be incompetent in every regard possible (both of these coming from well-known rhetoric about the superiority of the German race vs. the inferiority of the Slavics). It's obvious bullshit but the west ate the propaganda up since it justified pre-conceived notions about the Soviet Union.

 

[Jarvin]

This is not "historical flavor", it is a complete and utter myth and lie that needs to stop being accepted at face value. By far the largest European population throughout the EU4 time period was in France, which was only eclipsed by the mid 19th century. Even post-EU4 the idea of Russia having infinite manpower was only perpetuated because of a lie invented by the Nazi leadership post-WW2 as an excuse to explain how they could be the bestest, smartest, greatest army in the world led by people who did everything right and still lose to the Soviet Union which was assumed to be incompetent in every regard possible (both of these coming from well-known rhetoric about the superiority of the German race vs. the inferiority of the Slavics). It's obvious bullshit but the west ate the propaganda up since it justified pre-conceived notions about the Soviet Union.

This is historical flavour, just how Poland being strong in Eu4 is historical flavour, even though Poland spend 90% of its history shitting its own bed.
Flavour in games based on history(or a perceived version of history) is something different than history itself.

 

[Less2]

This is historical flavour, just how Poland being strong in Eu4 is historical flavour, even though Poland spend 90% of its history shitting its own bed.
Flavour in games based on history(or a perceived version of history) is something different than history itself.

Poland having winged hussars be strong is historical flavor since it has basis in reality. Russia having infinite manpower does not. You can't have "historical flavor" with something that is ahistorical. That's just bullshit and in Russia's case outright racism.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Poland having winged hussars be strong is historical flavor since it has basis in reality. Russia having infinite manpower does not. You can't have "historical flavor" with something that is ahistorical. That's just bullshit and in Russia's case outright racism.

Calling it racism is missing the point of what it actually is. It is a nacional stereotype from WW II that is being applied to Russia because it is perceived to be their "thing". Just like Germans are shown to be Militaristic or Industrialist, GB a naval power house, Ottomans super tolerant towards other faiths, etc.

It is really no different than saying that Elves make for good archers, Humans are generalists and dwarves are miners, really.

All these stereotypes are born out of convention and partially based on History (in the case of fictionary races are based on the most widely known literature) and helps to create a common language for games. If they are accurate, good or bad is another thing altogether.

 

[Jarvin]

But Poland has more than just winged hussars. Its entire ideaset has one of the strongest bonuses for military. It has incredible bonuses from its government type too. If you look at the actual history, just what part of it is actually accurate?
That said, does it really matter? gawd no
Historical flavor doesn't need to, and often shouldn't, be actually accurate to the real world history.

Calling it racism is missing the point of what it actually is. It is a nacional stereotype from WW II that is being applied to Russia because it is perceived to be their "thing". Just like Germans are shown to be Militaristic or Industrialist, GB a naval power house, Ottomans super tolerant towards other faiths, etc.

It is really no different than saying that Elves make for good archers, Humans are generalists and dwarves are miners, really.

All these stereotypes are born out of convention and partially based on History (in the case of fictionary races are based on the most widely known literature) and helps to create a common language for games. If they are accurate, good or bad is another thing altogether.

I'm genuinely curious. Since your post seems to be saying exactly what I tried to say in my post earlier(just that you worded it better), why did you put a disagree on mine?

 

[Less2]

But Poland has more than just winged hussars. Its entire ideaset has one of the strongest bonuses for military. It has incredible bonuses from its government type too. If you look at the actual history, just what part of it is actually accurate?

It's a few % better than an average idea set. That's completely different from "lol Russia has 2x the manpower of everyone else magical armies appearing out of nowhere hurr durr". The polish government situation can probably be more ascribed to the devs not knowing how to play their own game.

Historical flavor doesn't need to, and often shouldn't, be actually accurate to the real world history.

You can't pretend that the word "historical" doesn't exist in the concept of "historical flavor". If that's what you want to argue for then just call it what it is, which is bullshit made up modifiers. I can guarantee you that if I made a mod where I added Africans getting +50% goods produced on account of their excellent cotton picking abilities people would not be defending it as "historical flavor".

 

[Jarvin]

You can't pretend that the word "historical" doesn't exist in the concept of "historical flavor". If that's what you want to argue for then just call it what it is, which is bullshit made up modifiers. I can guarantee you that if I made a mod where I added Africans getting +50% goods produced on account of their excellent cotton picking abilities people would not be defending it as "historical flavor".

Yeah but if you made a mod that adds an idea to Japan called "Nippon steel" or whatever, giving them +25% infantry combat ability, that would be "historical flavour", just because of how people perceive the history of Japan(even if, naturally, it's wrong)

it's like white chocolate. It doesn't have much to do with actual chocolate but it's still called that because of the similarities between the two(also the marketing value I guess)

EU4's "flavour" is essentially a bunch of made up modifiers. That's kind of the point of it though, isn't it? The value of historical accuracy in videogames matter only insofar as it helps players immerse themselves into the game. Ironically, if you tried to make the game into something that is 100% accurate to history, it wouldn't be as popular.
(that's why games like Gary Grisby's series remain and will always remain niche)

 

[Less2]

Yeah but if you made a mod that adds an idea to Japan called "Nippon steel" or whatever, giving them +25% infantry combat ability, that would be "historical flavour", just because of how people perceive the history of Japan(even if, naturally, it's wrong)

I'm pretty sure that would be called a joke.

 

[Orioniys]

There is a historical justification for Russia to have some form of bonus manpower, from Ivan IV rule there is fairly efficient recruitment system. Life long conscription is 18 century Russian Empire thing however.

 

[BlazeKnight_]

Oh ye but 'excellent' is a strong word.
They are just as you say: normal units but with a miniscule bonus. Having +10% fire damage on your infantry is equivalent to having like what, 0.8% discipline? 0.9%?
Their best past is that you can get them from the magic button.

I honestly much preferred the version of streltsy where they were not hirable thru the macro menu, and only obtainable through the magic govt button.
It works better, because it has a historical flavor aspect of "russia has infinite troops" and gameplay wise it spares you from the pain of recruiting troops with no template.


But obviously: streltsy are in a decent spot right now.

How the hell is 10% Fire 0.8% Discipline.

Discipline is both offensive and defensive, and applies to both phases.

Fire damage is only offensive and only applies to the fire phase.

Thus, fire damage is about 1/4th Discipline (assuming fire and shock is equal).

[Polish ideas are] a few % better than an average idea set. That's completely different from "lol Russia has 2x the manpower of everyone else magical armies appearing out of nowhere hurr durr". The polish government situation can probably be more ascribed to the devs not knowing how to play their own game.

Hell no, Polish ideas are one of the best in game. Obligatory Discipline, 15% Morale, 10% ICA, 25% Manpower.

 

[Jarvin]

How the hell is 10% Fire 0.8% Discipline.

Discipline is both offensive and defensive, and applies to both phases.

Fire damage is only offensive and only applies to the fire phase.

Thus, fire damage is about 1/4th Discipline (assuming fire and shock is equal).

..of the front line
Assuming morale is as important as physical casualties, and that fire/shock modifiers are equal (they often are for infantry) we are looking at x/4 of increase in attack value for that particular unit and no change for its defense abilities. Assuming cannons deal 80% of infantry's damage(give or take), 10% fire damage on infantry in total increases our damage dealt by like 1.3%, no matter how you put it this is less than 1% global disci bonus

Though obviously, the lack of clarity in how morale damage compares to physical casualties makes it impossible to calculate precisely.

Happy to do more accurate calculations for you when I'm back home <3

 

[Ionxion]

If you have enough military mana to waste it on janissaries, then you might aswell use it on slackenings

It costs me 250 MIL for a slacken v 25 janissaries and with their stats it's more like 40k infantry. Not to mention their permanent unlike slacken