The Cossacks!

[Comradebot]

If there's one thing (okay, there are a few things and I'm just picking this one for the time being) that bugs me about EUIII, its that you're so brutally pressured into having Western military units. Now, in some places this makes sense, say Native Americans.

However, the biggest glaring issue is Eastern Europe. I loved playing a game with Romania in EUIII, and held on to my Hussar-centric armies for as long as I could. It's the name of the game in Eastern Europe during this time period, but to actually try and follow history is inviting disaster, as sooner or later you'll be at odds with your Western neighbors who can absolutely squish your armies. Either you'll fall behind in the tech race (quickly), or you could try to Westernize, but without modernizing the military in the process you'll be left with painful stability costs (though thankfully you can just resist western influences to avoid all the negative events). All I want is to play in Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, or the Ukraine and have the appropriate style of military for the time. I hope EUIV avoids EUIII's failing here and not having Western units isn't a death sentence by the late 1500s. Earlier in the tech tree, it isn't such a big deal. Eastern cavalry is notably superior to the rest of the world's but they've got crap Infantry that they're required to have a certain amount of per army in order to reap the combined arms benefits. By the mid LT 20s, though, the advantage is gone and Western Cavalry quickly becomes dominant, and the only "advantage" that remains is that you can have more cavalry per army in Eastern tech.

Is EUIV going to deviate from this? Or are militaries going to remain pigeonholed into one style in order to be truly effective?

 

[Eh up me duck]

I never struggled to beat Europeans as Russians or Ottomans with un-Westernised troops. I think your experience may be more to do with being Romania rather than having Eastern military tech.

 

[unmerged(193360)]

I hope they get rid of the cultural units in EU4, or just keep them as flavor names. What's the point of having hard coded unit differences when we have perfectly good Tech Levels and National Ideas to represent how a country's armies fight?

 

[Andy_Dandy]

I hope they get rid of the cultural units in EU4, or just keep them as flavor names. What's the point of having hard coded unit differences when we have perfectly good Tech Levels and National Ideas to represent how a country's armies fight?

Because it's cool to represent differences in military doctrines that way, as for instance more dependance on cavalry in the east.

 

[unmerged(193360)]

Because it's cool to represent differences in military doctrines that way, as for instance more dependance on cavalry in the east.

National ideas handle that much better without hardcoding anything, especially combined with terrain bonuses so the countries on the Eurasian steppe have good reason to choose the cavalry oriented ideas.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

I never struggled to beat Europeans as Russians or Ottomans with un-Westernised troops. I think your experience may be more to do with being Romania rather than having Eastern military tech.

You realize that Poland defeated western armies regularly in the 16th and 17th century when outnumbered and some people therefore think picking the same faction and going in with either only 1000 extra soldiers or the same numbers shouldn't be a death sentence.

 

[alhoward]

You realize that Poland defeated western armies regularly in the 16th and 17th century when outnumbered and some people therefore think picking the same faction and going in with either only 1000 extra soldiers or the same numbers shouldn't be a death sentence.

Isn't that represented through the better cavalry given to the Eastern European tech groups? After all, wasn't it the Winged Hussars that made Poland so great? If you have an outnumbered army, but with a larger proportion of superior cavalry, and better led, you can easily win. Isn't that what gave the Poles their victories in the 16th and 17th centuries?

 

[unmerged(612669)]

Isn't that represented through the better cavalry given to the Eastern European tech groups? After all, wasn't it the Winged Hussars that made Poland so great? If you have an outnumbered army, but with a larger proportion of superior cavalry, and better led, you can easily win. Isn't that what gave the Poles their victories in the 16th and 17th centuries?

Yes. but from playing both by the time cossacks and reformed hussars are around they are obsolete and western cavalry vastly superior. By the time Caracole comes in it is game over for eastern cavalry, but historically hussars were imported into german and other western european cavalries.

 

[Bluehawk]

If you stick with the Eastern tech long enough, you end up "westernizing" whether you want to or not, because from Petrine Infantry onward, you have historically westernized troop types.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

If you stick with the Eastern tech long enough, you end up "westernizing" whether you want to or not, because from Petrine Infantry onward, you have historically westernized troop types.

They are western troops without western stats. If you try to use them in a remotely equal battle with western forces you lose.

 

[DanubianCossak]

They are western troops without western stats. If you try to use them in a remotely equal battle with western forces you lose.

And thats why if youre losing battle with eastern infantry, it doesnt mean that their infantry is bad, it simply means that you havent thrown enough of them into battle.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Yes. but from playing both by the time cossacks and reformed hussars are around they are obsolete and western cavalry vastly superior. By the time Caracole comes in it is game over for eastern cavalry, but historically hussars were imported into german and other western european cavalries.

Is it not historically accurate that by that period of the game, i.e. late seventeenth century, western unit types were superior?

It also really isn't impossible to win as an Eastern power. Yes your troops are *slightly* worse than the Western ones. But ideas, leaders and sliders all matter far more; an Eastern army with a good general and 120% discipline will easy smash western armies of equal size.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

Is it not historically accurate that by that period of the game, i.e. late seventeenth century, western unit types were superior?

It also really isn't impossible to win as an Eastern power. Yes your troops are *slightly* worse than the Western ones. But ideas, leaders and sliders all matter far more; an Eastern army with a good general and 120% discipline will easy smash western armies of equal size.

1. No just no, western cavalry was not superior the lancer was actually harder and harder to raise which western leaders complained about. If "Western" cavalry was so superior why is it the majority of western cavalry types were imported from the east? Uhlans (Poland) Hussars (Hungary) etc? In this country at least our cavalry was originally designed trained and raised by a Polish General (Pulaski father of American Cavalry), and it performed very well against the British despite complete lack of experience of the cavalrymen. The western Caracole was replaced by the eastern Hussar and Uhlan because it didn't work as well.

2. Yes if you manage to blob you could swarm, I covered that and have done it plenty of times; but aside from Russia who actually did that, and if Russia is your example then you are right it did swarm.

3. Strawman arguments are condescending obnoxious and ineffective. Nobody used them on you please show the same courtesy. The issue isn't that it is impossible to win as an eastern power the issue is that you have a choice of swarm or westernize your forces that isn't historical and doesn't strike many people as the right mechanic. If you disagree either provide proof that the Hussar and Uhlan originated in France or debate via game mechanics; which you have done very poorly at. AI always picks discipline ideas and gets generals. Oh and by the way eastern forces are not near parity after level 20 tech.

4. Reread the original post. Your gameplay reaction is something you know is just stupid if you played a single game quality-non-Russians always go for it, Ideas-somehow I doubt you meant it because drill is always one of the first ai ni, generals-yes because they lack them. You ALWAY lose as eastern against a similar sized western army unless it is retreating from a defeat and you know it so no more strawmen.

 

[Werson]

I thought this thread would be about a more accurate representation of the Cossacks and Altaic culture in the game (such as dividing the Tartars into many cultures such as Crimean Tartars, Volga Tartars, Nogai Tartars, etc).

I'm dissapointed.

 

[grommile]

I thought this thread would be about a more accurate representation of the Cossacks and Altaic culture in the game (such as dividing the Tartars into many cultures such as Crimean Tartars, Volga Tartars, Nogai Tartars, etc).

I'm dissapointed.

While on the theme of Tatars, Cossacks, and disappointment: Why are the Zaporozhian Cossacks treated by EU3 as being Tatars?

 

[DanubianCossak]

While on the theme of Tatars, Cossacks, and disappointment: Why are the Zaporozhian Cossacks treated by EU3 as being Tatars?

Cause theres no way to get things from setup in 1399. to what it was in 1500s so that cultural set up changes naturally to what it was historically. Youd need to make events and stuff that changed cultures, and thats horribly deterministic and stuff. So this was a half assed solution to keep things as close to reality as possible. I guess. Not like they could have done much about it without creating whole bunch of content (think the amount of unique stuff in HRE).

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

While on the theme of Tatars, Cossacks, and disappointment: Why are the Zaporozhian Cossacks treated by EU3 as being Tatars?

Were the Zaprozhian Cossacks free serfs from multiple cultures? Coming from as far as Muscovy, yet also coming from Tatars, Polish and Lithuanian overlords? So I suppose it was just a dev decision to 'pick' one. Although they should be Polish if I understand the history of the situation correctly - which I may not.

 

[Grubnessul]

And thats why if youre losing battle with eastern infantry, it doesnt mean that their infantry is bad, it simply means that you havent thrown enough of them into battle.

That means that it is bad. If they lose 1:1, they are worse, right?

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

That means that it is bad. If they lose 1:1, they are worse, right?

Yes that does mean they are worse, however don't most eastern countries have more manpower than western countries of a similar size?

 

[WeissRaben]

Yes that does mean they are worse, however don't most eastern countries have more manpower than western countries of a similar size?

I should verify, but I think that Eastern countries actually have less manpower, ceteris paribus. Don't take this too seriously, for now - I will have a look later.