Starting sliders if I remember correctly for most eastern nations start with more bonuses toward building lots of troops quickly.
The Cossacks!
- Thread starter Comradebot
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Starting sliders if I remember correctly for most eastern nations start with more bonuses toward building lots of troops quickly.
Problem is that EE countries had very different militaries among each other, unlike WE where it was basically pikemen, musket, caracolle cavalry everywhere. Polish military was very different from Russian one. PLC army was a mix of western style/mercenary troops and small numbers of 'national' quality cavalry. There never was massive levied numbers like in case of Russia, it was small but of very high quality (regularly beating enemy while outnumbered, sometimes few times to one). Russia on the other hand didn't rely so much on cavalry (which was mostly horse archer noble levies, not lancers), but had a lot of semi-proffesional infantry (Streltsy), and they had huge numbers in general. In EU3 this was reflected by sliders (Poland=quality, Russia=quantity), but now?
There's also matter of determinism. In 15th and early 16th century Poland had basically typical western military, and without union with Lithuania and activity in the East it would most likely stay that way (no winged hussars in such AH scenario). IIRC in EU2 Poland stayed in western tech-group if it didn't form PLC.
Last edited:
I see, surely if they did form the PLC they would keep western tech just maybe gain some modifier to cavalry (to represent the hussars/eastern european cavalry dominance?) to show the mix between tech groups at least militarily.
I think that Eastern Technology group is actually fitting PLC under current mechanics. Tech groups are pretty bad mechanic in general - it's not like EE countries didn't have technological knowledge to use caracolle or pike & musket (Poland and Russia used both) - it was simply of little use in the Ukraine or the steppe.
For accuracy it should always have the best cavalry and the worst infantry.
I think that the importance of Unit techs should be minimized. National ideas, generals, and slider positions should help determine the quality of your troops. If tech levels are equal, then each unit should roughly be the same (especially between Western and Eastern tech groups). Different units should represent different battle choices. If you take a Tercio you should be better on the defense than on the offense, if you focus on Hussars you should be good in the shock phase, and other things along those lines. But they should represent styles. Maybe three different units per unit tier: every x number of tech levels you get a new Offensive focused unit/defensive unit/economy unit. Each of these unit types are named for flavor, but are otherwise largely equal.
Or take the CKII route and just eliminate individual unit tactics. Instead just give EEurope tech group some cavalry buffs.
Or take the CKII route and just eliminate individual unit tactics. Instead just give EEurope tech group some cavalry buffs.
i just want the eastern infantry to not be as horrible as they are currently......their starting infantry....ug when while im sure the western armies had the better infantry the eastern ones shouldnt be so downright horrible
I always thought, that it would be awesome, if your tech progression was to similar to Galactic Civilizations series, where you don't unlock the new series of units, just new type of weapon and then customize your troops yourself. For example, if you are technologically advanced enough, you can give your african spearmen new muskets and still beat the crap out of European powers. It would be even better if in the tech tree there were different branches for new weapon, tactics, discipline and organization and you could focus on one of those and try to lead unorganized Ulmian invading hordes with machine guns, raping and pillaging everything on your way until you are stopped by disciplined Ottoman pikemen.
That paragraph seems to be mainly "hur hur nationalism" hur. There aren't that many examples of eastern cavalry fighting western cavalry alone. Do you disagree that by 1650 Western units should be superior to Eastern units?
What. Who mentioned blobs? Or swarms?
The internet seriously needs a crib sheet explaining to people what a "straw man" is...
I say again, plenty of people have done as you are suggesting and smashed western armies without "swarming". Myself I have never moved a pip towards "quantity" on that slider so I have plenty of games under my belt as fully quality Eastern countries curb-stomping Europeans.
We get it -you don't know the game well enough to play it properly. If Eastern unit types aren't good enough for you, then you're not good enough. Try harder.
Let's just...leave this here.
No, he presented historical fact of Western cavalry switching to Eastern character cavalry with introduction of uhlans and hussars. Unit types and technology are two different things, and under bad EU3 mechanics Eastern countries are unrealistically penalised twice (worse tech level, worse units at equal tech level). So in 1650 tech level Western units should be equal to Eastern units - tech level difference should be enough to give Western countries an advantage.
And like others said - unit types should be disconnected from tech-groups, and tied to some sort of 'national tactics' thing. Or even better - scrapped altogether.
Last edited:
I've recently researched this and here are my observations:
- Prior to 1700 (before Peter the Great) you had elite troops (nobles) and half-proffessional army (so-called strelcy, which means "shooter"). Russians widely used firearms and artillery, the army was not so big. There was, in fact recruits before Peter the Great, as well as foreign advisors, but still this army was distinct and somewhat old-fashioned, more feudal than modern. It was effective for fighting eastern lands (which Russia colonized) and not-so-good for fighting Europeans.
- During and shortly after Peter the Great Russian army modernized, I think you can say it's westernized but remained very distinct. While Europeans used professional, mercenary armies, Russia used recruits who served for life. There were many foreign officers (like the famous Patrick Gordon), limited use of exotic regiments like Cossacks or Tatar bowmen (yes, bowmen), but most of the army looked like any European army.
- However, there ware a big differences. Russian officers didn't hesitate to lose men for victory; casualties were always high and there weren't many expirienced regiments. Morale was pretty high, as Friedrich the Great said "In the same circumstances French soldier runs, Austrian surrenders and Russian dies". Technology level was pretty much the same as in Europe.
- Northern War, Sweden VS Russia. Swedes've beaten Russia and went to fight in Poland, thinking that Russia won't recover for long. Russia built weapon industry, called new regiments and won the war - but this victory was strategic, battles itself weren't so intense.
- Turks. Russians effectively fought turks and tatars in Crimea and other places, but couldn't hold Crimea because of supply problems (that's what EU won't show us).
- Seven Years War. Days of Russian glory. First there was strategic victory that given Russia eastern Prussia, then Friedrich the Great beaten Russian troops but couldn't get a clear victory. There you get another Russian advantage: they had first monocultural army in Europe, almost everyone in it knew Russian and could react to complex commands to stand Prussian tactical attacks. Then Russia fought Prussians again and it was a rare occasion when Russian army wasn't bigger than European and still won.
In the end: Russian army was weaker than Europeans up to Peter the Great and then it quickly became almost as good as Prussian one. You can call it westernization, but I think it would be better to call just modernization. In game terms, Russian national ideas gave it small bonus to military tactics and morale, but it didn't had European bonuses to discipline, as well as even bigger bonus to tactics and defence from ideas/technology.
- Prior to 1700 (before Peter the Great) you had elite troops (nobles) and half-proffessional army (so-called strelcy, which means "shooter"). Russians widely used firearms and artillery, the army was not so big. There was, in fact recruits before Peter the Great, as well as foreign advisors, but still this army was distinct and somewhat old-fashioned, more feudal than modern. It was effective for fighting eastern lands (which Russia colonized) and not-so-good for fighting Europeans.
- During and shortly after Peter the Great Russian army modernized, I think you can say it's westernized but remained very distinct. While Europeans used professional, mercenary armies, Russia used recruits who served for life. There were many foreign officers (like the famous Patrick Gordon), limited use of exotic regiments like Cossacks or Tatar bowmen (yes, bowmen), but most of the army looked like any European army.
- However, there ware a big differences. Russian officers didn't hesitate to lose men for victory; casualties were always high and there weren't many expirienced regiments. Morale was pretty high, as Friedrich the Great said "In the same circumstances French soldier runs, Austrian surrenders and Russian dies". Technology level was pretty much the same as in Europe.
- Northern War, Sweden VS Russia. Swedes've beaten Russia and went to fight in Poland, thinking that Russia won't recover for long. Russia built weapon industry, called new regiments and won the war - but this victory was strategic, battles itself weren't so intense.
- Turks. Russians effectively fought turks and tatars in Crimea and other places, but couldn't hold Crimea because of supply problems (that's what EU won't show us).
- Seven Years War. Days of Russian glory. First there was strategic victory that given Russia eastern Prussia, then Friedrich the Great beaten Russian troops but couldn't get a clear victory. There you get another Russian advantage: they had first monocultural army in Europe, almost everyone in it knew Russian and could react to complex commands to stand Prussian tactical attacks. Then Russia fought Prussians again and it was a rare occasion when Russian army wasn't bigger than European and still won.
In the end: Russian army was weaker than Europeans up to Peter the Great and then it quickly became almost as good as Prussian one. You can call it westernization, but I think it would be better to call just modernization. In game terms, Russian national ideas gave it small bonus to military tactics and morale, but it didn't had European bonuses to discipline, as well as even bigger bonus to tactics and defence from ideas/technology.
Russia does westernize under Peter the Great in EU3, just start a game after 1711, they will be in the Western tech group.
No it shouldn't. Then you're just forcing Russia to be Poland when Poland was only like that due to very specific reasons.
Poland actually had very good infantry at times that weren't inferior to western infantry at all, the nobles just hated paying for them so they never became a established institution.
When I restore the Byzantine Empire from 1 province I don't call it accuracy when my military suddenly turns Polish several hundred years later.
Hey, I also didn't say they shouldn't do this. I'd love to see the Cossacks given some real representation in EUIV.
Also: yay, Transvaal!
1. No again just no. Western types of cavalry were abandoned and western nations raised eastern types of cavalry. In my country our cavalry was founded, trained, originally under the leadership and outperforming British Cavalry while lead by a POLISH general. Your ethnocentric decision that frenchmen and englishmen are ahistorically better then easterners is not confirmed by anyone besides yourself because by the time of Napoleon you may read what he had to say about Cossack Cavalry (try to accuse me of nationalism now considering how well Poles and Cossacks got alone). You sir have no knowledge of history if you think by 1650 Western Cavalry was superior to eastern.
2. Please stop insulting everyone, you are in an EU IV forum which means everybody here has played EU3, it is possible to win as eastern nations by heavily outnumbering your enemies. To do that you either have tampered with the options (in which case you don't count) cheated (in which case you don't count) or expanded (aka blobbed), or just abandoned eastern tech by military modernization (in which case your experience is irrelevant).
3. I think your a liar, a cheater or your playing on very easy difficulty. Eastern armies always lose when they don't heavily outnumber their enemies starting at the 20s tech level.
4. We get it you are a very horrible liar, a cheater, or playing on very easy. Everyone else seems to have agreement that eastern infantry are horrifically inferior and you need to have numbers to win. I have seen you in other threads; and you always have something stupid to say.
5. I get it you want your games to be an I Win button. Everyone else would like something resembling balance.
6. You have no knowledge of the history of cavalry warfare nor do you have any about eu 3 gameplay mechanics. You are condescending ignoramus and feel free to just cheat in EU IV which I am sure your doing now; but don't expect your uninformed and ignorant posts to get any respect from people who enjoy studying HISTORY or for that matter your outlandish ideas that if all things are equal your eastern army beats a western army (except on very easy which might as well be godmode). Maybe you would be interested in reading examples of Tatars defeating the Sweedish (western) cavalry you think hopelessly outdid them in 1650; but then you have to have an open mind. Just like you would need an open mind to see how Empress Elizabeth defeated Frederick the Great.
Last edited:
Well I'm no Joe but Polish infantry was always adapted to eastern landscapes; even during the reign of Jan Sobieski English Observers called Jan Sobieski's infantry "wretched men"; the skill is praised but the model army of Jan Sobieski doesn't seem to have had equally trained or equipted infantry.
I'm not ethnocentric; if you could show me ways I'm wrong I will be glad to read it; and I agree it is somewhat odd to see Cossacks Hussars and other oddities in Greece. (I understand them having once been a Byzantine player).
StupidGenius, by eastern cavalry you mean "light cavalry", right? Then I don't think it's right to say that West adopted it. Gunpowder stripped cavalrymen of armor and they were forced to behave as their Eastern friends like Hungary Hussars or Russian/Ukranian/Whatever Cossacks. And I still think that different tech group troops should be balanced, displaying different tactics. Western Europe gets it's share of technology and idea bonuses, and that's why Russians usually have to use bigger forces to win, but they still can win even a great general with the same army size sometimes, so it's not the same difference as between West/East and Middle East.
That, or you can fight smart and wait for the proper moment to attack. The AI tends to split its armies every now and then, take 'em apart piecemeal when they do. Have you checked what kind of units you're sending your cavalry heavy army against? Cavalry doesn't tend to fare that well against, say, pikemen, though I'm not sure if the game actually renders that. Also, western armies generally had more funding, training, and equipment, especially when it comes to infantry, which is why you're not winning 1:1 fights without some good generals or better tactics.
Also, you seem like you're getting pretty angry. Try to calm down, it helps make for better discussions.
One of the most common fallacies seen on these forums is that "X is not unbalanced/broken because a clever player can work around it". It is showing up in this thread too.