This may be more suggestive to a future EU5, than a hoped-for change in EU4, but it also speaks toward logic breakdown and equity for AI vs Player interaction in a Normal/Iron Man game (I can't speak for "Very Easy" or other difficulties as I only play this mode).
When a Rebellion spawns in a player province, there are distinct differences that seem illogical and far too much in favor of the AI:
- Full Morale upon spawning in, as if the entire group were on smartphones in the 16th Century and sending constant messages about how they'd gather in a couple weeks time and be totally organized, yeah right. Consider, any "Regular" military unit that is bought and sourced from normal channels, you know, the actual people who either volunteer or were volunteered to enter the Army, those people cannot possibly be as well organized and they start at half or less morale, right? So why are Rebellions starting at full Morale when the Morale factor also has to do with the process of gathering people together to fight as a unit. Anyone here ever tried to put together 1,000 or more people in a rapid, rag-tag unit and suddenly get them ready for War? Yeah, it doesn't happen overnight, and certainly not on the same day they're organized. And that's what's a Party Foul here in the illogical Rebellion spawns, they're full Morale from the Instant On status on Day 1.
- Technology. This is one I have to shake my head at. So, an organized Government has their best scientists and "engineers" of the day, constantly mulling over how to make better gear for their Armies, better weapons, even better shoes/boots. It's a full time thing for a warring nation, to perform the Research & Development to put the best war kit/gear on their troops. But, a Rebellion spawns in always at the same or better technology level as a years/decades-long "Regular Army" unit? C'mon Man, let's put some logic into this thing. Who designed this system of Instant On high tech for non-regular Rebellion forces? I recently had a Rebellion spawn that had greater than 1 point variance in their Morale top-end stat, a full point! And if you play EU4 enough, you know that a full point of Morale difference is a big deal, especially if you're going in at otherwise even odds, but then I hover the cursor over their excessively high morale number and see, that it is because of "Technology" that it is so much higher. What? You mean these guys that aren't full-time defending the nation, and committing taxes to research and maintain the kit - you mean these people who just do other-than-military stuff are spending all their extra time performing Research & Development in their secret chambers in the 16th Century? Hmm, I smell the stench of illogical Game Design here. In the military there are "Regular" and "Irregular" forces, in simple terms. The Irregulars are NEVER outfitted with better gear, never, ever, ever. The only way that happens is if they're in cahoots with some foreign Army who illegally or covertly supplies them with weapons (such as CIA giving Mujahideen the Stinger missiles in Afghanistan to fight Russians). But that's a rarity, and a very niche event. However, in force-on-force engagements, where those same Mujahideen must fight a Russian tank - that tank is winning. Tech advantages only go so far, in a very niche area, when foreign tech does enter the mix. But in general? Irregulars are still lesser than Regular forces, period.
- Leader/Commander stats out of line with Regular vs Irregular forces. If your day job is some menial 16th century task, even if it's the boss man himself, that work is what you do, it's your Day Job. That doesn't mean you can suddenly take charge of 1000 or more troops and lead them to glory. Sure, there are the rare instances of the "commoner" who becomes hero, such as Joan of Arc, but leadership on a battlefield with Armies is just as much tested and trained, more so than a sudden thing that makes one near-invincible on the battlefield. I recently saw a Commander of a Rebellion - had stats that were lottery odds, I guess, because I hadn't earned that high of a Commander in 200 virtual years of progressing my nation (and I had well over 40 Army tradition almost always, once rolling along). Having a Rebellion spawn in with General Patton coming out of the closet - just isn't realistic. We need to see the "irregular" versions of Commanders also, when these irregular Rebellions spawn into the game. And last I checked - people do actually want to live, they aren't just itching for a fight to get themselves slaughtered, so the "geniuses" that may make good Commanders, aren't exactly lining up to get themselves killed (a genius wants to live). Logically, there should be a top-end for irregular Commander stats, and a top-end for Regular Army Commander stats. They shouldn't be peers, nor present themselves that way in the game.
- Large weapons/Ammunition. Here's where EU4 bridges toward fantasy, and I mean no-kidding Fantasy Land gaming. Rebellions wouldn't have the large-weapons and enormous stocks of resources/ammunition to field those weapons and operate them continuously in a war. This is one of the clear dividing lines between "Regular" and "Irregular" forces throughout history. Only Regular forces maintain big guns, and compile the logistics necessary to field those weapons and sustain their firing in a major war. In EU4, a Rebellion on day 1 has same or better Cannons on the line, as the Regular Army of a nation with 100+ years of procuring/testing and fielding Cannons. Really? I could see a past-generation Cannon (and maybe 1 at best), and perhaps about 2-3 volleys of ammunition, but to gain Cannons and all the surrounding resources (powder bags, iron balls/shot, etc. etc) - it's insane to think that an Irregular force that was worried about picking up horse dung the day before, is now well-prepared to go toe-to-toe with a Regular Army and have infinite Ammunition and Powder to keep them all firing.
Someone at Paradox really needs to get more serious about all of the Offensive and Defensive gameplay in the EU4 series, and especially the lack of specificity for Regular vs Irregular forces (Victoria game series did this much better!). For far too long, the combat metrics and the way it plays out and the stats presented to the player - have far too many flaws in logic and errors in judgement (Zone of Control forcefields, Shattered Retreat across Continents, and the never-ending high-tech Rebellions). This is partly the danger of putting so much information out there! Paradox prides itself in statistical details, but what about when those details reveal that the Emperor has No Clothes? Frankly, I think the Combat System in the EU series is in dire need of a major overhaul. EU5 should actually start from a completely new/fresh starting point - don't even use EU4's combat system as a baseline, just start anew. That in itself, is probably the best advice that I could give to Paradox in this matter, that there are so many issues with this EU4 combat system, that you need to not just go back to the drawing board - but you need to throw the drawing board out. For all the gloss and shine and stats of EU4, we have a Yugo of a combat system.
When a Rebellion spawns in a player province, there are distinct differences that seem illogical and far too much in favor of the AI:
- Full Morale upon spawning in, as if the entire group were on smartphones in the 16th Century and sending constant messages about how they'd gather in a couple weeks time and be totally organized, yeah right. Consider, any "Regular" military unit that is bought and sourced from normal channels, you know, the actual people who either volunteer or were volunteered to enter the Army, those people cannot possibly be as well organized and they start at half or less morale, right? So why are Rebellions starting at full Morale when the Morale factor also has to do with the process of gathering people together to fight as a unit. Anyone here ever tried to put together 1,000 or more people in a rapid, rag-tag unit and suddenly get them ready for War? Yeah, it doesn't happen overnight, and certainly not on the same day they're organized. And that's what's a Party Foul here in the illogical Rebellion spawns, they're full Morale from the Instant On status on Day 1.
- Technology. This is one I have to shake my head at. So, an organized Government has their best scientists and "engineers" of the day, constantly mulling over how to make better gear for their Armies, better weapons, even better shoes/boots. It's a full time thing for a warring nation, to perform the Research & Development to put the best war kit/gear on their troops. But, a Rebellion spawns in always at the same or better technology level as a years/decades-long "Regular Army" unit? C'mon Man, let's put some logic into this thing. Who designed this system of Instant On high tech for non-regular Rebellion forces? I recently had a Rebellion spawn that had greater than 1 point variance in their Morale top-end stat, a full point! And if you play EU4 enough, you know that a full point of Morale difference is a big deal, especially if you're going in at otherwise even odds, but then I hover the cursor over their excessively high morale number and see, that it is because of "Technology" that it is so much higher. What? You mean these guys that aren't full-time defending the nation, and committing taxes to research and maintain the kit - you mean these people who just do other-than-military stuff are spending all their extra time performing Research & Development in their secret chambers in the 16th Century? Hmm, I smell the stench of illogical Game Design here. In the military there are "Regular" and "Irregular" forces, in simple terms. The Irregulars are NEVER outfitted with better gear, never, ever, ever. The only way that happens is if they're in cahoots with some foreign Army who illegally or covertly supplies them with weapons (such as CIA giving Mujahideen the Stinger missiles in Afghanistan to fight Russians). But that's a rarity, and a very niche event. However, in force-on-force engagements, where those same Mujahideen must fight a Russian tank - that tank is winning. Tech advantages only go so far, in a very niche area, when foreign tech does enter the mix. But in general? Irregulars are still lesser than Regular forces, period.
- Leader/Commander stats out of line with Regular vs Irregular forces. If your day job is some menial 16th century task, even if it's the boss man himself, that work is what you do, it's your Day Job. That doesn't mean you can suddenly take charge of 1000 or more troops and lead them to glory. Sure, there are the rare instances of the "commoner" who becomes hero, such as Joan of Arc, but leadership on a battlefield with Armies is just as much tested and trained, more so than a sudden thing that makes one near-invincible on the battlefield. I recently saw a Commander of a Rebellion - had stats that were lottery odds, I guess, because I hadn't earned that high of a Commander in 200 virtual years of progressing my nation (and I had well over 40 Army tradition almost always, once rolling along). Having a Rebellion spawn in with General Patton coming out of the closet - just isn't realistic. We need to see the "irregular" versions of Commanders also, when these irregular Rebellions spawn into the game. And last I checked - people do actually want to live, they aren't just itching for a fight to get themselves slaughtered, so the "geniuses" that may make good Commanders, aren't exactly lining up to get themselves killed (a genius wants to live). Logically, there should be a top-end for irregular Commander stats, and a top-end for Regular Army Commander stats. They shouldn't be peers, nor present themselves that way in the game.
- Large weapons/Ammunition. Here's where EU4 bridges toward fantasy, and I mean no-kidding Fantasy Land gaming. Rebellions wouldn't have the large-weapons and enormous stocks of resources/ammunition to field those weapons and operate them continuously in a war. This is one of the clear dividing lines between "Regular" and "Irregular" forces throughout history. Only Regular forces maintain big guns, and compile the logistics necessary to field those weapons and sustain their firing in a major war. In EU4, a Rebellion on day 1 has same or better Cannons on the line, as the Regular Army of a nation with 100+ years of procuring/testing and fielding Cannons. Really? I could see a past-generation Cannon (and maybe 1 at best), and perhaps about 2-3 volleys of ammunition, but to gain Cannons and all the surrounding resources (powder bags, iron balls/shot, etc. etc) - it's insane to think that an Irregular force that was worried about picking up horse dung the day before, is now well-prepared to go toe-to-toe with a Regular Army and have infinite Ammunition and Powder to keep them all firing.
Someone at Paradox really needs to get more serious about all of the Offensive and Defensive gameplay in the EU4 series, and especially the lack of specificity for Regular vs Irregular forces (Victoria game series did this much better!). For far too long, the combat metrics and the way it plays out and the stats presented to the player - have far too many flaws in logic and errors in judgement (Zone of Control forcefields, Shattered Retreat across Continents, and the never-ending high-tech Rebellions). This is partly the danger of putting so much information out there! Paradox prides itself in statistical details, but what about when those details reveal that the Emperor has No Clothes? Frankly, I think the Combat System in the EU series is in dire need of a major overhaul. EU5 should actually start from a completely new/fresh starting point - don't even use EU4's combat system as a baseline, just start anew. That in itself, is probably the best advice that I could give to Paradox in this matter, that there are so many issues with this EU4 combat system, that you need to not just go back to the drawing board - but you need to throw the drawing board out. For all the gloss and shine and stats of EU4, we have a Yugo of a combat system.
Last edited:
- 22
- 2
