Yeh those inovative events are sweet. +100 admin points here, +200 there... topped off with the occasional -5% tech cost events.
The most useless and the best idea
- Thread starter TejaAmelung
- 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.
Yeh those inovative events are sweet. +100 admin points here, +200 there... topped off with the occasional -5% tech cost events.
Ah, the old Scientific Revolution events... Even so, not all of the innovative related events are good- some -tech, -stab -prestige events in there. I just don't think it's worth the adm points for such small bonuses (especially considering how valuable adm points are)
Plus it gives you some nice decisions: education act (-5% technology cost, +1 prestige) and recruitment act (-10% recruitment time +10% manpower)
I used it with my italy game, coupled with having 2 universities (tuscany) the +100 admin points happened OFTEN! I saved so many admin points by having cheaper techs and ideas, the events probably more than payed for the cost of the idea tree.
Edit; OMG nerf tuscany. 2 universities, tech cost reducing NI, and inovative made techs stupid cheap. If i had planned it out better, I could have worked plutocratic into the mess too if I'd kept genoa alive longer.
The problem which downgrades Innovative from a possible top place is that its benefits are mostly random, being events - yeah, you will PROBABLY benefit, but you could pick up the joker and never get a single event about it.
I'd say the best part of innovative is that you get higher army/navy tradition and more WE reduction. Adding all the other bonuses is nice, too, but really - more army tradition can give you effectively the same effects as offensive, higher navy tradition much the same as naval (well, apart from the all-important force limits)...
I think you missed the Defensive nerf in 1.2. It actually halves attrition instead of doubling supply now, and the 1% attrition doesn't do terribly much unless you can stack it with other +attrition ideas, and it's weakened by the fact that every single nation seems to take defensive, that's only 0.5% attrition in practice. The really useful part is the +1 leader siege, which does wonders to help burn through the boosted defensiveness that everyone and their grandmother has by reducing how long you spend in the least productive siege phases. The morale and the tradition are also nice, but the mandatory attrition is rather overrated.
So functional immunity to war exhaustion, not hemorrhaging tradition nearly as fast, recruiting faster, cheaper tech, and an extra maintenance-free leader aren't extremely useful? And never mind the fact that it gives some of the best events in the game and makes the amazing Agricultural Revolution fire twice as often.
With that WE reduction, you can basically wage war forever, or at least until you run out of manpower and can't field enough mercs. Combine it with Quantity (or being Muscovy/Russia) and you can outlast pretty much anyone who doesn't hilariously outmatch you (like some HRE OPM vs France) in any war.
My top priorities are exploration, diplomatic and religious, maybe I'll throw in defensive in between probably to burn off some military points, but the next is expansion. Basically, anything that gives a diplomatic bonus is great. Diplomatic and expansion both give +2 diplomatic supports, which is extremely handy. And religious... damn, if you're anywhere in Asia and you conquer Sunni provinces, this is an absolute must. And if you're in Asia and need to Westernize early, exploration is also a must. And even as a European power, it's helpful to get colonies going along with your other things.
The lowest rank for me are: Any military idea except probably defensive, trade/naval, innovative/economic. Administrative is highly situational, e.g. when you're stuck between large enemies you might want to spam mercs really fast. This was extremely useful as Granada, for example.
Well, that said, I'm not really the kind of person who gets excited to fight a big enemy. I want to make other people do the dirty jobs for me.
The lowest rank for me are: Any military idea except probably defensive, trade/naval, innovative/economic. Administrative is highly situational, e.g. when you're stuck between large enemies you might want to spam mercs really fast. This was extremely useful as Granada, for example.
Well, that said, I'm not really the kind of person who gets excited to fight a big enemy. I want to make other people do the dirty jobs for me.
No, the +25% morale is hands down the best military bonus in any of the military trees. Not sure if it'll be true after the patch, but right now it basically divides western militaries into 2 tiers: those with the morale bonus and those without.
I mean the reason the Prussians are so good right now is because they have +33% morale bonus. The Quality group is mostly ineffective right now (except the Discipline buff at the end).
Yes morale and discipline are pretty much the only stats that matter in combat atm. And defensive is the only NI that gives morale. Makes it mandatory. There are 2 choices for discipline. the other benefits from defensive are fluff, the morale is king. Used to be the half unit weight that made it king. But that got fixed. Just goes to show how good the line really is when even agter a huge nerf, it's still number one.
Nonsense.
The unitpower modifiers of Quality works perfectly well as is - it is just that they don't work the way many players thought they worked. Combined with the +discipline bonus, Quality is in 1.2, just as it was in 1.0 and 1.1, the milgroup that contributes the most to the abilities of your armies, navies, and garrisons in battle.
What Offensive provides over Quality are items of strategic value (manpower, force limits, force march) and an increase in your average leader skills, but for pure combat Quality in 1.2 blows Offensive out of the water, and the choice between the two is, essentially, one of utility vs. power.
(Which is inter alia why e.g. an 1.2 MP Prussia without either Quality or Offensive, but with Innovativeness ideas to ensure it gets super generals due to minimal tradition decay, can still walk over its neighbours that have one of those milgroups, because its native +20% discipline and +25% unit power is darn awesome when combined with good generals, as shown so spectacularly in the ongoing Europa Unleashed MP game. The insane morale bonus helps as well, but without the unitpower Prussia would have had a much harder time against its enemies and the Eastern powers in particular.
)The combat mechanics change to 1.3 will make unit power work more the way players expect, which I guess is overall to the good, but as it is right now, it is already a pretty awesome modifer.
Nonsense.
The unitpower modifiers of Quality works perfectly well as is - it is just that they don't work the way many players thought they worked. Combined with the +discipline bonus, Quality is in 1.2, just as it was in 1.0 and 1.1, the milgroup that contributes the most to the abilities of your armies, navies, and garrisons in battle.
What Offensive provides over Quality are items of strategic value (manpower, force limits, force march) and an increase in your average leader skills, but for pure combat Quality in 1.2 blows Offensive out of the water, and the choice between the two is, essentially, one of utility vs. power.
(Which is inter alia why e.g. an 1.2 MP Prussia without either Quality or Offensive, but with Innovativeness ideas to ensure it gets super generals due to minimal tradition decay, can still walk over its neighbours that have one of those milgroups, because its native +20% discipline and +25% unit power is darn awesome when combined with good generals, as shown so spectacularly in the ongoing Europa Unleashed MP game. The insane morale bonus helps as well, but without the unitpower Prussia would have had a much harder time against the Eastern powers.
The combat mechanics change to 1.3 will make unit power work more the way players expect, which I guess is overall to the good, but as it is right now, it is already a pretty awesome modifer.
Ummm wat?
Combat bonuses have been proven to do absolutely NOTHING against same tech groups. And it's hardly needed when fighting chinese as a westerner at all. Even then 10% combat bonus was only giving a 1% advantage. They are simply broken atm (to be fixed tomarow).
Nonsense.
The unitpower modifiers of Quality works perfectly well as is - it is just that they don't work the way many players thought they worked. Combined with the +discipline bonus, Quality is in 1.2, just as it was in 1.0 and 1.1, the milgroup that contributes the most to the abilities of your armies, navies, and garrisons in battle.
What Offensive provides over Quality are items of strategic value (manpower, force limits, force march) and an increase in your average leader skills, but for pure combat Quality in 1.2 blows Offensive out of the water, and the choice between the two is, essentially, one of utility vs. power.
(Which is inter alia why e.g. an 1.2 MP Prussia without either Quality or Offensive, but with Innovativeness ideas to ensure it gets super generals due to minimal tradition decay, can still walk over its neighbours that have one of those milgroups, because its native +20% discipline and +25% unit power is darn awesome when combined with good generals, as shown so spectacularly in the ongoing Europa Unleashed MP game. The insane morale bonus helps as well, but without the unitpower Prussia would have had a much harder time against its enemies and the Eastern powers in particular.
Quality does absolutely nothing if you are at the same tech as your opponent.
No, it'll make it do something, sure, but it remains to be seen how effective it'll be. Probably pretty good, I guess.
Assuming Quality works correctly in 1.3 I would recommend it over the other military ideas only if you want the Naval and Land bonuses. Especially if you are not primarily using your ships in an inland sea. (For example the Ottomans would probably prioritize Galleys over Heavy Ships but England would do the opposite)
Tech group is not relevant to unitpower calculations in 1.2. The weaponmodifier is, which is independent of tech group and dependent solely on tech level, and the unitpower expresses itself via the difference between attacker and defender's modified weaponmodifier. A 10% better weaponmodifier vs. an enemy of the same techlevel is an advantage, which size in what most players look at (casualties/day inflicted on the opponent) depends entirely on the techlevel.
The result is that at low tech levels, you'll tend not to notice any significant impact from unitpower while fighting those of the same tech level as yourself - or rather, of as high techlevel as yourself where the weaponmodifier was last increased, since the fire, shock, and moralemodifiers are increased at different levels of different arms of the armed forces - while it becomes more obvious when fighting countries of different techlevels and more obvious at higher techlevels in general.
I read the thread attempting to recreate the 1.2 combat mechanics, and I respect the work put into it, but the fact that the mechanics did not work the way many expected or did not show as large numbers as they'd like does not change my conclusion about the worth of unitmodifiers as a whole over the course of a game or the worth of the entire Quality group which combines unitmodifiers for everything with a +15% discipline bonus for everything.
Since they are working exactly as designed in 1.2 and work pretty well, I cannot agree with you that they are "simply broken".
I can agree with you that the design is unintuitive and that battles in 1.2 are not bloody enough in the late game - and these are two of the things being addressed in 1.3 amongst many others.
Offensive don't guarantee good generals, and as defensive gives you +1% land tradition(and war tradition adds to land morale) it is as good as +1 to every stat(cause it makes you have ALLWAYS at least 20% war tradition). Forced march is usefull, but compared with defensive NI's, it loses the competition. Thou, i would say in my personal list, offensive is on second place. And offensive + deffensive, is best possible combination of NI's. Godly generals all the time, and forced march + doomstack armies + attrition war to any enemy who is stronger than you... and any one that tries to cross your border.
Generaly the fact of having permanent 20% tradition(makes you allways to have at least additional 0,1 morale, and 0,1 manpower recovery, along with 0,02 morale recovery, the fact that being 20% tradition ussualy means you will have at least 4 additional dots over 0% tradition, and +0,25 morale... well best to say, defensive beats offensive on everything. Only advantage offensive gives you, over defensive is faster march and more manpower(forcelimit=manpower). Plus a discipline bonus at the end. BUT defensive gives you 100% bigger armies(more concentration of force). It beats the 10% more damage, as long as you can use it well. And of course the attrition...
Each bonus for defensive group IS usefull. In offensive, one is useless(100% prestige from land battles? nah, mostly useless, cause ussualy you can get 100% prestige without it - thou it may be nice when you would lose your PU and instead win a battle then sustain it... But cept this kind of situation, which is rare, it is not NI we would dream of).
Last edited:
Tech group is not relevant to unitpower calculations in 1.2. The weaponmodifier is, which is independent of tech group and dependent solely on tech level, and the unitpower expresses itself via the difference between attacker and defender's modified weaponmodifier. A 10% better weaponmodifier vs. an enemy of the same techlevel is an advantage, which size in what most players look at (casualties/day inflicted on the opponent) depends entirely on the techlevel.
The result is that at low tech levels, you'll tend not to notice any significant impact from unitpower while fighting those of the same tech level as yourself - or rather, of as high techlevel as yourself where the weaponmodifier was last increased, since the fire, shock, and moralemodifiers are increased at different levels of different arms of the armed forces - while it becomes more obvious when fighting countries of different techlevels and more obvious at higher techlevels in general.
I read the thread attempting to recreate the 1.2 combat mechanics, and I respect the work put into it, but the fact that the mechanics did not work the way many expected or did not show as large numbers as they'd like does not change my conclusion about the worth of unitmodifiers as a whole over the course of a game or the worth of the entire Quality group which combines unitmodifiers for everything with a +15% discipline bonus for everything.
Since they are working exactly as designed in 1.2 and work pretty well, I cannot agree with you that they are "simply broken".
I can agree with you that the design is unintuitive and that battles in 1.2 are not bloody enough in the late game - and these are two of the things being addressed in 1.3 amongst many others.
well in 1.3 they are simply making them do what discipline does now. 10% bonus to damage. Which is why i posted my response at the begining of the thread....
In 1.2 giving one of two equal tech units a huge 100% combat bonus, still did nothing. when he raised the 100% modified unit a couple tech levels (thus increasing fire/shock modifiers) it gained ~1% bonuses to damage. that still qualifies as NOTHING in my book, when it was increasing combat ability by 1/100th of the listed amount against a backwater nation.
I'm still of the opinion (no one actually tested this) that if the nation with the combat ability fell behind in tech, those modifiers became a MALUS due to how they were being aplied. So if your prussia fell behind in tech, due to filling up idea trees, your 25% infantry "bonus" would in fact, cause you more casualties.
As I recall the calculated value was actually 1+ (unitPowerA*weaponModifierA)-(unitPowerB*weaponModifierB)/20