"Insane?" Oh please.
Besides Offensive kills the rebels Just fine. Give decent arguments.
Besides Offensive kills the rebels Just fine. Give decent arguments.
The new "Maginot" aspect of the AI makes Offensive a no brainer.
- Thread starter Beagá
- 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.
It doesn't, it's dependent on the development of rebellious provinces. That's why in the early game people can get surprised by rebel stacks higher then their force limit.
There are curious situations where the rebels are considerably stronger than the regular armies of an average country (so not an OPM). I think it would make more sense if these armies in question were those of a pretender to the throne (possibly reinforced by a neighboring rival country wanting to place a dynasty favorable to its interests - we lack such events in EU IV) rather than separatists or religious fanatics. That said, I'm not complaining about this possibility of obtaining a high military tradition (99% is even possible if you regularly offer part of your troops for hire in the HRE).
Personally I rarely use quantity, but maybe I should start trying it out. Never been a fan of it really and I have 4k hours in the game. I usually go offensive for wide play or defensive to stack morale. But I'll give Quantity a go.
Offensive is just useless. The 20% siege ability is negligible and there are so many other sources for it. General shock and fire pips you just get naturally with high army tradition. In the new beta you don't even need to delete the generals when you roll for a good one.
If you want to speed up sieges go Aristocratic, the only one actually useful because siege pips are much rarer to come by. If you want better units, go quality. I don't see a single reason to pick offensive at all except getting the artillery combat ability policy in order to get +30% as Russia, and even that still requires you to pick quality too.
If you want to speed up sieges go Aristocratic, the only one actually useful because siege pips are much rarer to come by. If you want better units, go quality. I don't see a single reason to pick offensive at all except getting the artillery combat ability policy in order to get +30% as Russia, and even that still requires you to pick quality too.
- 6
It is a LOT more dependent on the situation than you are implying here.
As an example, the comparison between Offensive vs. Aristocratic vs. neither when sieging a basic level non-Defensive non-Capital fort on terrain that doesn't add any defensiveness and against an enemy that isn't using the state edict: Offensive takes an average between 52 days (full cannon stack + 6 siege pips) and 261 days (no cannons or siege pips), Aristocratic takes an average between 65 days (full cannon stack + 6 siege pips) and 282 days (no cannons, only 1 siege pip), and having neither idea takes between 65 days (full cannon stack + 6 siege pips) and 326 days (no cannons or siege pips).
As you can see there, Offensive saves more time than Aristocratic does in sieging down a fort on average at both extremes (0 starting bonus or max starting bonus), and aristocratic doesn't outperform having no military ideas if you somehow get lucky enough to have a 6 pip siege general ... but more likely, Aristocratic means you'll have +1 siege pip over non-Aristocratic, which means anywhere from 44 days (0 pips vs. 1, no cannons) and 6 days (5 pips vs. 6, max cannons) compared to non-Offensive but compared to Offensive with the same comparison (just the +1 siege pip difference) Offensive saves 13 days with otherwise max bonus (5 pips and max cannons) or 22 days with 0 pips/cannons.
If you're sieging down an opponent that does have defensiveness bonuses (either they took defensive, have a fort on a hill/highland/mountain province, are using defensive edict which probably doesn't happen against AI, or some combination of the above) then Offensive is still more advantageous than Aristocratic in most early game situations but no real significant difference at any point until you start getting into the late game and Level 6+ forts (Offensive is better if the starting bonus is between -2 to 4 or 7+ while Aristocratic is better at any point below -3 and also at +5 and +6, but the only differences beyond the 10.38 advantage for Offensive at +1 starting bonus is Aristocratic's advantages at -5 and below and particularly at -6, -8 and -9 where the advantage is 45+ days ... but the only way you get to that situation is if you aren't using enough cannons or siege leader to get even a +3 against a level 8 fort or +4 against a Level 8 capital fort).
The tl;dr is that Quantity will be the most beneficial in winning siege races IF it means you can support an additional siege stack (and can still win any battle that comes up while sieging), Offensive/Defensive are both more beneficial in winning siege races if you can't afford an additional siege stack or have enough manpower to also engage in more battles (where Offensive makes it easier to win battles unless you have enough of a morale advantage to stack wipe with Defensive, while Defensive makes it even easier to maintain higher tradition as long as you are winning battles and allows you to lose less manpower while sieging in addition to making them burn more manpower while sieging). Aristocratic is a median option that doesn't excel in any of those particular situations (unless sieging down high level forts without any leader or cannons) but is great to supplement all of them.
Last edited:
Prior to this beta Offensive would maybe be a 7th/8th slot idea group for me, but I would seriously consider sliding it in earlier now. Maybe as my 5th or 6th idea group. Offensive is definitely stronger than it was before, but I would still pick Quantity first. There is more nuance to it, but it's basically a question of is it better to siege two forts at the same time vs siege one fort more quickly. Sieging two forts at the same time with full cannons seems to be the more efficient choice to me. Especially after you weigh in the capacity to fight multiple wars at once or wars on multiple fronts.
That being said, I am not too worried about it. I doubt the current AI fort logic will remain this way into the next patch's official release. It is just completely broken at this point. Any improvement in AI war logic is cancelled out as wars are easier than before, just more tedious.
That being said, I am not too worried about it. I doubt the current AI fort logic will remain this way into the next patch's official release. It is just completely broken at this point. Any improvement in AI war logic is cancelled out as wars are easier than before, just more tedious.
That’s a really good point. Siege racing the AI is tortuous. Everyone has their own story of 7% ticks being lost to the AI whilst your on a 70% (literally the most annoying thing in the world)
Saw ottomans with 4 castles in bosnia and serbia. Just Crazy.
France too loves spamming forts.
France too loves spamming forts.