Wasteland, Eurocentrism, and a petition for an expansion focusing on Africa

[Axe99]

I really think that instead of simply increasing attrition, there should be harshly decreased reinforcement unless connected to an owned core fort.

That's another thing that'd help - a logistics/supply system. Simple, of course, but something like that would go a long way to make doomstacks sailing around the world a good deal less common. You have more attrition moving large armies early on in Vicky 2 than you do in EU4! It'd be a fairly big change, though, and the AI would need some training to use it.

 

[Jomini]

That's another thing that'd help - a logistics/supply system. Simple, of course, but something like that would go a long way to make doomstacks sailing around the world a good deal less common. You have more attrition moving large armies early on in Vicky 2 than you do in EU4! It'd be a fairly big change, though, and the AI would need some training to use it.

If by help, you mean make the game less historical, then sure.

Period logistics made it easier to sail a doomstack across the ocean than to fight 100 miles away overland. In the EUIV era armies obtained virtually everything they needed to fight as they went. Daily rations were never carted with the army, they were bought/stolen/pillaged from the locals. Very rarely food might be shipped along river courses. Weapons and armor were durable and were carried by the men. Shot was collected after battle and recast; if you won a battle you rarely ran low. Powder, well powder would run low ... if you fought. Cash was sometimes transported with armies, but even that was rare as plunder formed the mainstay of pay in this era.

Throughout the period the effective fighting strength of European armies typically increased as distant campaigns wore on as local tribes, kingdoms, and mercenaries signed on.

This not WWII were you have a steady consumption stream of manufactured goods that required you not too stray to far a fleet of ships, trucks, and trains connecting the sharp point of the army with the industrial centers back home. This is an era where the enemy literally has everything you need to survive and can only destroy it he is willing to inflict very significant harm on himself.

What kept Africa clear of Europeans was in part disease, but more it was the fact that what was lucrative in Africa (e.g. the slave & ivory trades) could be efficiently dominated from the coast and taking over large swathes of the interior was viewed as an inefficient endeavor. Even the wildest incursions of quasi-armies of Portugal in Kongo were little more than small core of European forces with a huge number of native allies. It just wasn't worth it for Portugal to send enough manpower to subdue Kongo - Spain would invade over the borders or the Dutch would attack Brazil or the British would go after their positions India.

 

[Jomini]

I don't think they want EU IV to be that kind of tactical game. The way battles are abstracted, the way artillery marches like infantry, "monarch points", these things and crap like "colonial range" push the game way off course of realistic historical considerations. In that vein, the idea that it's impossible for West Africa to send an army to East Africa at game start, when England could make a serous foray into Kazan, is just bizarre.

You're asking for consistency in a different direction, which is reasonable too, but it doesn't appear to be the direction PI has interest in going. I would like some consistency of any sort first, among other basic gameplay issues.

Ehh they went back this way when they redid Africa most recently. I'm not opposed to more states/provinces ... just don't have them all be boring giant megablobs where the inside & even coasts of the blob look like every other region in the game.

Part of the replayability of the game is that states actually are different in the decisions you make. Not just well, regardless of where I start I want this idea and that opening tech progression.

 

[Axe99]

If by help, you mean make the game less historical, then sure.

Period logistics made it easier to sail a doomstack across the ocean than to fight 100 miles away overland. In the EUIV era armies obtained virtually everything they needed to fight as they went. Daily rations were never carted with the army, they were bought/stolen/pillaged from the locals. Very rarely food might be shipped along river courses. Weapons and armor were durable and were carried by the men. Shot was collected after battle and recast; if you won a battle you rarely ran low. Powder, well powder would run low ... if you fought. Cash was sometimes transported with armies, but even that was rare as plunder formed the mainstay of pay in this era.

The situation you outline holds for the first hundred years or so of the game in Europe (although the 'live off the land' approach also limited where armies could operate historically, something it doesn't do in EU4 - so the lack of care of logistical issues is stillthere). As armies grew in size through the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s, logistics became more and more important to operations (initially from private merchants), until by the last fifty years of the game you see the introduction of far more formalised logistics arrangements. At no point in history, though, could armies just saunter about like those in EU4. In the early years of the game, whether a siege could be conducted or not often depended on whether there was enough plunder available from surrounding lands to support the besieging army. In EU4, it's very, very rare (particularly in Europe) that the supply limit in a province exceeds the fort level. And thus you end up with what we have in EU4, which when it comes to warfare is far more Risk than Hearts of Iron, say.

As an aside, armies during the period (start or finish, but particularly early on) had nowhere near the levels of artillery that you find in EU4 (indeed, most units in WW2 didn't have the levels of artillery that you find in EU4!) - were these artillery pieces requiring the supply they actually consumed, it would go a long way to artillery forces being of an appropriate size in-game.

Further, overseas european armies from 1492-1820 required a degree of support from either local supporters or their home nation, or faced severe difficulties.

It's very easy to find examples of the limits of the capacity of European powers to project large armies overseas. This is just from some quick googling for the sources:
- it was very difficult even for Britain in the later period of the game (revolutionary wars) to maintain a large army in the US (39K) because of sogistical problems (http://www.alu.army.mil/alog/issues/SepOct99/MS409.htm)
- Supplies played a significant part in the fortunes of both sides during the French and Indian War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War)
- Napoleon in Russia (http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/Archive Articles/Spring2011/LynchBennettArticle.pdf)
- The Carnatic wars (between the British East India Company and various Indian states) (http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/a...ish-logistics-conduct-carnatic-wars-1746-1783)
- Spanish conquistadors in South and Central America (https://books.google.com.au/books?i...Q#v=onepage&q=conquistadors logistics&f=false)

Instead, Europeans often relied heavily on local mercenaries and locally-raised troops once an area had been brought under their control. They almost always relied on a degree of local supply (either from pre-existing colonial holdings or sympathetic locals) to sustain the forces they did have. I'm unaware (doesn't mean it doesn't exist, would be happy to be made aware if it did ) of a large European (or other) force being projected overseas without an already-established local base of supply, and with supply from the homeland also arranged longer-term.

 

[Guardian54]

what's it like being this boring?

In Canada, failing a class in elementary or secondary school is a grade of "R"
There is a certain US political party that acts like him (except replace "Europe" with "Murica") which happens to begin with the same letter.
That is not to say a grade of "D" is much better, but still...

Period logistics made it easier to sail a doomstack across the ocean than to fight 100 miles away overland. In the EUIV era armies obtained virtually everything they needed to fight as they went. Daily rations were never carted with the army, they were bought/stolen/pillaged from the locals.

Please read Sun Tzu's Art of War. This is so wrong in non-European warfare that my mind feels broken. How are you going to march a 500,000-conscript army around without a even larger supply train? Hint: You don't.

 

[Jomini]

The situation you outline holds for the first hundred years or so of the game in Europe (although the 'live off the land' approach also limited where armies could operate historically, something it doesn't do in EU4 - so the lack of care of logistical issues is stillthere). As armies grew in size through the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s, logistics became more and more important to operations (initially from private merchants), until by the last fifty years of the game you see the introduction of far more formalised logistics arrangements. At no point in history, though, could armies just saunter about like those in EU4. In the early years of the game, whether a siege could be conducted or not often depended on whether there was enough plunder available from surrounding lands to support the besieging army. In EU4, it's very, very rare (particularly in Europe) that the supply limit in a province exceeds the fort level. And thus you end up with what we have in EU4, which when it comes to warfare is far more Risk than Hearts of Iron, say.

As an aside, armies during the period (start or finish, but particularly early on) had nowhere near the levels of artillery that you find in EU4 (indeed, most units in WW2 didn't have the levels of artillery that you find in EU4!) - were these artillery pieces requiring the supply they actually consumed, it would go a long way to artillery forces being of an appropriate size in-game.

Further, overseas european armies from 1492-1820 required a degree of support from either local supporters or their home nation, or faced severe difficulties.

It's very easy to find examples of the limits of the capacity of European powers to project large armies overseas. This is just from some quick googling for the sources:
- it was very difficult even for Britain in the later period of the game (revolutionary wars) to maintain a large army in the US (39K) because of sogistical problems (http://www.alu.army.mil/alog/issues/SepOct99/MS409.htm)
- Supplies played a significant part in the fortunes of both sides during the French and Indian War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War)
- Napoleon in Russia (http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/Archive Articles/Spring2011/LynchBennettArticle.pdf)
- The Carnatic wars (between the British East India Company and various Indian states) (http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/a...ish-logistics-conduct-carnatic-wars-1746-1783)
- Spanish conquistadors in South and Central America (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=BC3aAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=conquistadors logistics&source=bl&ots=HJJCvCIQmT&sig=X42x_eOT1rlfoVxgudl6j5eYRT8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCGoVChMIt4CurPL8xwIVpRmmCh1NMAzQ#v=onepage&q=conquistadors logistics&f=false)

Instead, Europeans often relied heavily on local mercenaries and locally-raised troops once an area had been brought under their control. They almost always relied on a degree of local supply (either from pre-existing colonial holdings or sympathetic locals) to sustain the forces they did have. I'm unaware (doesn't mean it doesn't exist, would be happy to be made aware if it did ) of a large European (or other) force being projected overseas without an already-established local base of supply, and with supply from the homeland also arranged longer-term.

Napoleon literally planned a live off the land march from Cairo to India; it was well researched and quite viable. Long before game start the Mongol Empire (as well as Tamerlane and others) managed to live off the land on marches across the greater length of the Eurasian landmass. I am well aware of sutler contracting adopted by Le Tellier and the rest as well as the extremely unique position Great Britain found herself in with a large professional (if not standing) army.

You will note that I never mentioned sieges in my initial response, I am well aware of the inability of long sieges to be sustained by supplying the troops. However, the years long basic siege was virtually unheard of the EUIV era. Your own source notes that Boston, once besieged, was unable to sustain itself.

Complete and utterly incompetent forces managed to wear down state of the art fortresses in months. And by no means were sieges relationship to plunder confined to the early years. Louis XIV himself had to alter his top level strategic objectives to deal with over pillaged land not being able to support the sieging forces; Frederick the Great at times devoted the better part of the Prussian military just to protect grain convoys to maintain key sieges. Sieges were a complete an utter beast ... but as noted by your own source, maintaining both offensive and defensive sieges was vastly easier with naval shipping than overland supply. Holding the Bengal forts was easier for the British than maintaining operations less than 100 miles from the troops home territory in the Michigan/Ohio theater of the War of 1812

But here is the fun thing. As bad as maintaining sieges could be - doing so was always easier along the coast if you controlled the water. As bad as the problems your sources cite were for the British, they were far, far worse for oh every French campaign in the Netherlands. Moving supplies overland was the absolute worst and was never done in the time period. The British, due to their disproportionate reliance on trade and fishing and lack of comparable army expenditures, were afford the ability to use pure oceanic transport. Yes morale got hurt with weavels in flour, corruption drained the treasury, etc. but no British expeditionary force ever starved en masse. The same cannot be said for land based setups, like Russia or France. In comparison to the difficulties the Russians had feeding their own army on their own territory, the British had no problems at all in North America.

No one disputes that it was hard to do ANYTHING in this era. It is just that fighting on the far flung coasts of the world were vastly easier than overland support. In about 100 miles, Napoleon lost half the survivors of the Grand Army. Proportionally more than the British lost at Ticonderoga and Yorktown combined. Every single continental war had worse logistical problems than the British in America. The British could have easily solved their logistical problem, but the looting and pillage necessary would have lost them the war.

In reality, as I noted armies routinely fought without supply lines. In the early era the only major loss was communication (not modeled in a game where you have perfect control and information for everything on your side). In the late game, loss of supplies were an issue for artillery.

To whit, your sources agree with me. The British kept an effective force in the field that regularly won battles even when 2/3rds of the ships supplying them were lost and further shipments were cut off. Further, the British managed to maintain an army with no significant losses even when they had far harder times in 1812 supplying Canadian armies in Detroit and Perrysburg. All of this was child play in logistics compared to the troubles of Gustavus Adolphus or Frederick the Great.

Honestly, it was easier to fight half a world away along the coast than it was 100 miles overland.

 

[Jomini]

In Canada, failing a class in elementary or secondary school is a grade of "R"
Please read Sun Tzu's Art of War. This is so wrong in non-European warfare that my mind feels broken. How are you going to march a 500,000-conscript army around without a even larger supply train? Hint: You don't.

Hint: dropping Sun Tzu is child's play.
Hint: A guy named Jomini likely has read Traité des grandes operations militaires (you know the foremost period work on the French military revolution by the foremost period French theoretician of the era).

In general though, I suggest starting with Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton. Unlike an ancient work that has been out of date on logistical costs for millenia, van Creveld is one of the top military theorists working today and when I was at MCWAR was the most commonly assigned author. If you want a more Asian take, Guerilla Warfare by Mao is a classic.

But hey, the USMC knows piss all about warfare and all those grad classes I took are worthless compare to Art of War.

Here is another hint for you. That 500,000 conscript army - it most likely never existed except on paper. When the Manchu raided and sieged the Ming capital they could not even muster half that amount. To protect the emperor himself. Less than half the paper strength of just the capital managed to be mustered from the the entire country to face an existential threat to the state. Chinese records are quite explicit about the many, many paper units that existed solely as ways to line officers and court official's pockets.

Here's another hint for you. How do you expect to move the food for 500,000 men with a supply train? With the best fodder possible you get six days of travel (see van Creveld, Jomini, etc.) because the horses have to carrying their own food. A logistical supply train in this era faces a steep, exponential increase in fodder requirements the longer it is. It is physically impossible to move more than 12 days of marching overland. Which is why every single major Chinese engagement occurred within easy march of the major rivers or the Grand Canal.

 

[Demetrios]

Looking at what could be added, the area to from the Great Lakes to the coast is obviously the best candidate - it was well populated and contained states which would fit well into the EU4 paradigm.

Going into more detail, the prime area to be added would be the area around Lake Malawi. This area was ruled by the Kingdom of Maravi during the entire game period; a large, organized state which would border directly on Mutapa, Sofala, and Kilwa. This would definitely add some much-needed dynamism to the area, and would help set up a bit more of a counter to Kilwa, which in most games simply steamrolls the entire area. I'd definitely say that if only one new area were to be added to mainland Africa, Maravi would be the best choice.

The other part of this region with notable states would be the area to the north and west of Lake Victoria. Here, Buganda, Bunyoro, and Rwanda existed since the start of the game period; it would be possible to stretch things a bit and add in Burundi as well (although it likely wasn't founded until somewhat later). These would form a tight-knit area of states which would likely have some interesting game play as well. The problem here is that they (unlike Maravi to the south) are isolated from the coastal states, and would require a fair amount of empty provinces between them and the coast, an area that today makes up the bulk of inland Kenya and Tanzania. Perhaps some of the coastal states could have a province or two inland to help fill up this expanse (to represent the trade routes they had inland), or maybe someone with a bit more knowledge of the region could come up with some further states in the region.

Beyond that, I'm not sure if anything could be reasonably be added. The Sahara, the jungles of the Congo basin, and the Kalahari make up most of the remaining wasteland, and all should reasonably stay as such. I guess cases may be made for the area between the South African provinces and Mutapa, and perhaps a Zambezi - Katanga - Angola corridor (although there were some states there, they were almost totally isolated from the outside world), but even then whether the effort to add them would be worth it in actual gameplay value would seem to me to be somewhat questionable.


Finally, as I've stated elsewhere, Madagascar definitely needs some love. See the Madagascar thread in the Suggestions subforum for my suggestions there...

 

[Axe99]

To whit, your sources agree with me.

Your contention was that we don't need a logistics system to make warfare more historically plausible, but the post from which this snippet is quoted says quite the opposite. It notes that armies had supplies shipped over water, and that access to supplies (overland or over sea) mad maintaining and defending sieges substantially more effective. Indeed, EU4's lack of modelling of the difference between over sea and overland logistics means a European power can sail its army to India, of 40,000 troops, and march it all the way to (and through, as long as it splits into three or so stacks) the mountains of Afghanistan through hostile territory with little trouble.

My contention wasn't "it's harder to supply troops overseas" (although you'll see that the size of the forces supplied overseas was far, far smaller than those possible in EU4, because there is no logistics system) but that "a logistics system would make the colonial acquisitions and colonial wars in EU4 more realistic. In this context, they'd be focussed along the coast, and the European forces would be smaller (as while it was easier, there were still issues shipping large forces overseas), and adventures inland would be much more complicated. Dropping 40 or 80K European troops in india to go conquering should be a mammoth undertaking, not something even the AI does without working up a sweat.

 

[Jomini]

Your contention was that we don't need a logistics system to make warfare more historically plausible, but the post from which this snippet is quoted says quite the opposite. It notes that armies had supplies shipped over water, and that access to supplies (overland or over sea) mad maintaining and defending sieges substantially more effective. Indeed, EU4's lack of modelling of the difference between over sea and overland logistics means a European power can sail its army to India, of 40,000 troops, and march it all the way to (and through, as long as it splits into three or so stacks) the mountains of Afghanistan through hostile territory with little trouble.

My contention wasn't "it's harder to supply troops overseas" (although you'll see that the size of the forces supplied overseas was far, far smaller than those possible in EU4, because there is no logistics system) but that "a logistics system would make the colonial acquisitions and colonial wars in EU4 more realistic. In this context, they'd be focussed along the coast, and the European forces would be smaller (as while it was easier, there were still issues shipping large forces overseas), and adventures inland would be much more complicated. Dropping 40 or 80K European troops in india to go conquering should be a mammoth undertaking, not something even the AI does without working up a sweat.

Please accurately summarize me, I said, "Period logistics made it easier to sail a doomstack across the ocean than to fight 100 miles away overland. In the EUIV era armies obtained virtually everything they needed to fight as they went."

You said, "Simple, of course, but something like that would go a long way to make doomstacks sailing around the world a good deal less common."

Your sources agree with this. In spite of losing 2/3rds of their last shipping convoy, in 1775, the British maintained their army in good order for several years living off the land, for several years after. Funnily enough the British had the most difficulty with feeding the army in Boston; the port closest to London, Cork, and Nova Scotia.

Getting a period setup for such logistics occurred (mostly feeding the artillery pieces) would be tough. We'd need to do something to make rivers and oceans much more important. What period logistics would not do is limit how far you could sail doomstacks. The British were conducting campaigns with more troops almost antipodal to London than were currently active in the home counties. In this era distance is measured from water. Shipping anything by deep draft oceanic transport was vastly cheaper than shipping by riverine or shallow draft transport which in turn was vastly cheaper than moving overland.

But weren't there long distance campaigns? Indeed there were. The Mongols, after all, routinely invaded lands separated by thousands of miles with overland transport. Napoleon's Egyptian campaign covered a huge amount of ground and Marlborough marched from one side of Europe to the other. How did they manage this? Not with some logistics train. Marlborough struck out overland from the Netherlands and lost even communications with that quarter. Instead he pillaged through Bavaria and supported his entire doomstack (and later the Austrians too) by looting. Everyone, ended up living off the land in this era. Go read my namesake. Or Essai Général de Tactique. Or any other period strategist.

Now sure if you want to go a level deeper, where guerilla warfare becomes a "thing" and pacifying the population becomes an issue ... maybe you have a case for a supply system which should normally boil down how much do they like us, how much to we want to pillage them (to death or not), can we afford to pay them.

But no campaign in this era fed moving troops from the rear. Garrisons and sieges, sure that rarely happened. But no, logistics of this era are NOTHING like modern ones. Supplying doomstacks on the coast of Australia would indeed be easier (and cheaper excluding hull costs) than 100 miles overland in ox carts (or worse horses). Invading Africa with a long tradition of agriculture would be difficult, but without disease or external military threats, period logistics would not stop it. The rivers in Africa work quite similar to those in Europe. While cassava and yams are bit harder to pillage, it was done and not that hard. Logistics are NOT what kept Europe from invading Africa and East Asia.

 

[mcmanusaur]

What kept Africa clear of Europeans was in part disease, but more it was the fact that what was lucrative in Africa (e.g. the slave & ivory trades) could be efficiently dominated from the coast and taking over large swathes of the interior was viewed as an inefficient endeavor. Even the wildest incursions of quasi-armies of Portugal in Kongo were little more than small core of European forces with a huge number of native allies. It just wasn't worth it for Portugal to send enough manpower to subdue Kongo - Spain would invade over the borders or the Dutch would attack Brazil or the British would go after their positions India.

It's true that the colonization system would need some work in order to accommodate the changes I'm requesting. But in all honesty it needs improvement either way. We already have colonial nations and trade companies to represent different types of colonies, and currently each are tied to predefined regions.

As far as mechanical changes are concerned, if you think about it these are really the only two dynamics that need to be reproduced:
Expansion by land into adjacent provinces (Russia into Siberia, colonial nations)
Colonization by sea into coastal provinces (the usual Western European colonizers)

There really aren't too many cases that fall outside these two general dynamics. Therefore, Paradox could really make it so that you can only colonize coastal provinces unless there is a land connection to your capital/your capital is on the same continent (that way Russia can still colonize Siberia and colonial nations can still expand in the Americas). Disable the automatic formation of colonial nations and make it elective. Either form a colonial nation and relinquish direct control or be confined to coastal provinces, it's up to the player.

And to prevent players from forming colonial nations in the wrong places like the interior of Africa, things could still be restricted by region. I think that we can all agree where colonial regions would go (the Americas, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand). Trade company regions can go pretty much everywhere else- West and East Africa, the Middle East, India, Indochina, China, Indonesia, etc.

It's certainly a radical shift, and I don't think that it's the most likely way that Paradox would accommodate changes to Africa, but I think it's actually quite viable.

 

[Axe99]

Please accurately summarize me, I said, "Period logistics made it easier to sail a doomstack across the ocean than to fight 100 miles away overland. In the EUIV era armies obtained virtually everything they needed to fight as they went."

You said, "Simple, of course, but something like that would go a long way to make doomstacks sailing around the world a good deal less common."

Sorry - I wasn't trying to say that's what you said - rather, that's what the data you provided in your post implied. The other thing is, there are no examples, anywhere, that I'm aware of, of forces larger than 39K being sent overseas to fight an overseas war (and even those 39K were going to a rebelling colony were a substantial proportion of the population still supported the British). The sources I provided indicated that sending troops overseas was difficult, and that there were limits because of logistics. In EU4, on the other hand, I've seen Ming sail a fleet from China to the UK (without stopping!) to invade. I've seen France pick up 50K troops and drop them in Borneo to acquire a protectorate (with their closest possession on the Cape). Ignoring the length of voyage issues, because the AI does as well, I'm not suggesting France couldn't have sent a force of, say, 5K effectively, but is France sending 50K troops to Borneo, and being able to maintain itself at full strength in that environment, in the early 1700s, plausible?

But no campaign in this era fed moving troops from the rear. Garrisons and sieges, sure that rarely happened. But no, logistics of this era are NOTHING like modern ones. Supplying doomstacks on the coast of Australia would indeed be easier (and cheaper excluding hull costs) than 100 miles overland in ox carts (or worse horses). Invading Africa with a long tradition of agriculture would be difficult, but without disease or external military threats, period logistics would not stop it. The rivers in Africa work quite similar to those in Europe. While cassava and yams are bit harder to pillage, it was done and not that hard. Logistics are NOT what kept Europe from invading Africa and East Asia.

I didn't say the game needed a modern logistics system, but that it would benefit from a better way of measuring the cost of supplying and moving armies, be they overseas or trekking through central Europe. While it is the case that it was easier to supply troops overseas than overland, this still put a strain on the available shipping and required a certain amount of logistical support, usually obtained locally. In EU4, you don't need logistical support - I can literally sail 180K troops from England to China and drop them on the coast and start a siege with no trouble, and these armies are usually about a third artillery. You can then march them over hills, mountains and wherever you like. Warfare in EU4 as it stands is intensely implausible, in a game that, for the most part, revolves around warfare. This is one of the big reasons it's as 'Risk'-like as it is, with big stacks marching around taking all before them. Were the AI able to cope with it, making players have to make the same kinds of strategic decisions in war as actual participants did at the time would add a lot of depth to the game, and improve colonial mechanics at the same time.

For example, there are some substantial ranges between the east African coast and the rift valley. If the provinces are opened up without some kind of logistics system in place (or supply, or subsistence, or whatever the most appropriate term is), then conquest of the interior would be as easy as you like. On the other hand, if supplying troops over the mountains is a nightmare, it could go a long way to having those nations and provinces in the game, and making it possible for conquest to or fro from there, but also not very likely as it'd be very difficult. Does Portugal want to go inland from Mozambique? Sure, it can, but it's going to bleed manpower to do it, and get little return for it.

 

[Krajzen]

This thread is more intelligent than 98% of the internet

 

[PiriReis]

Great Lakes area and Madagascar need more love.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

This thread is more intelligent than 98% of the internet

That's not really saying much.

 

[grommile]

This thread is more intelligent than 98% of the internet

The person in the street is more intelligent than 98% of the internet, because the internet amplifies stupidity vastly more efficiently than it amplifies inteligence.

 

[Jomini]

Sorry - I wasn't trying to say that's what you said - rather, that's what the data you provided in your post implied. The other thing is, there are no examples, anywhere, that I'm aware of, of forces larger than 39K being sent overseas to fight an overseas war (and even those 39K were going to a rebelling colony were a substantial proportion of the population still supported the British). The sources I provided indicated that sending troops overseas was difficult, and that there were limits because of logistics. In EU4, on the other hand, I've seen Ming sail a fleet from China to the UK (without stopping!) to invade. I've seen France pick up 50K troops and drop them in Borneo to acquire a protectorate (with their closest possession on the Cape). Ignoring the length of voyage issues, because the AI does as well, I'm not suggesting France couldn't have sent a force of, say, 5K effectively, but is France sending 50K troops to Borneo, and being able to maintain itself at full strength in that environment, in the early 1700s, plausible?

The numbers in EUIV are off pretty much all around though. The small garrison states where the vast bulk of the male population took part in local warfare (e.g. Wallachia, Moldovia, etc.) have vastly lower numbers than was historical. Conversely, England maintains a larger standing army in 1500 in game than they managed in real life in 1750. Battles with armies over 100K are obnoxiously uncommon in EUIV. Likewise, defeating RotW powers typically was done with <1K mainline European troops and huge amounts of local mercenaries. France sending 50K to Borneo is less absurd than France not being able to take Borneo with 5K troops.

The most important dynamics for the RotW is that European troops should win often with a low expenditure of resources (compared to a European campaign). The fact that this currently means shipping 50K overseas is less bad than the fact that the cannot do so with historical numbers (e.g. The Aztecs should fall to very minimal numbers, not the 10K or more Spain needs in game).

Historically most states managed to easily send 10% of the main military power on distant operations. Great Britain was unique in that thanks to the strength of the Royal Navy, it was able to send the vast bulk of its forces away from the home country without fear of invasion.

I didn't say the game needed a modern logistics system, but that it would benefit from a better way of measuring the cost of supplying and moving armies, be they overseas or trekking through central Europe. While it is the case that it was easier to supply troops overseas than overland, this still put a strain on the available shipping and required a certain amount of logistical support, usually obtained locally. In EU4, you don't need logistical support - I can literally sail 180K troops from England to China and drop them on the coast and start a siege with no trouble, and these armies are usually about a third artillery. You can then march them over hills, mountains and wherever you like. Warfare in EU4 as it stands is intensely implausible, in a game that, for the most part, revolves around warfare. This is one of the big reasons it's as 'Risk'-like as it is, with big stacks marching around taking all before them. Were the AI able to cope with it, making players have to make the same kinds of strategic decisions in war as actual participants did at the time would add a lot of depth to the game, and improve colonial mechanics at the same time.

1. This is extremely hard on the AI. Logistics belong to a class of problems for which even incomplete solutions are computationally intensive. Currently the naval attrition system consists of a simple straight line distance calculation and a timer; one of the simplest attrition models. The AI cannot handle it and ignores it via an AI only cheat.
2. The more realistic the cost of logistics, the rewards of taking territory, etc. the more smart behavior will drive the player and the AI to ship doomstacks to the ends of the earth. The highest ROR for military adventures in the era were things like the conquest of the Aztec and Inca, but even the wars of North America and India proved far more lucrative than taking swathes of Europe. Historically decision makers had no idea how lucrative overseas conquest could be. Given the problem of player knowledge about the real ROR to be had, players make vastly different choices.

In a nutshell, historical leaders had vastly worse information about everything than we have in simple wikipedia articles. Knowing the actual loot to be had taking out India, China, or the Philippines means more shipping of doomstacks not less.

For example, there are some substantial ranges between the east African coast and the rift valley. If the provinces are opened up without some kind of logistics system in place (or supply, or subsistence, or whatever the most appropriate term is), then conquest of the interior would be as easy as you like. On the other hand, if supplying troops over the mountains is a nightmare, it could go a long way to having those nations and provinces in the game, and making it possible for conquest to or fro from there, but also not very likely as it'd be very difficult. Does Portugal want to go inland from Mozambique? Sure, it can, but it's going to bleed manpower to do it, and get little return for it.

The AI is terrible at this though. These are literally some of the hardest types of problems to model when you have humans in the loop, with pure massively instantiated AI you are going to get crap solutions. Like how currently the Ottoman AI will invade over the Sahara to siege useless provinces in central Africa; I'd expect the AI to regularly murder itself trying to expand in the Great Lakes region. You might hard code the AI to avoid crossing those attritionary murder spots ... but then you open up a huge number of tactical exploits.


The truth is even from Kongo there or the East African Swahili states there was extremely little contact with the Great Lakes Region. The game will be less historical if these countries lose their secure rear fronts.

It's true that the colonization system would need some work in order to accommodate the changes I'm requesting. But in all honesty it needs improvement either way. We already have colonial nations and trade companies to represent different types of colonies, and currently each are tied to predefined regions.

As far as mechanical changes are concerned, if you think about it these are really the only two dynamics that need to be reproduced:
Expansion by land into adjacent provinces (Russia into Siberia, colonial nations)
Colonization by sea into coastal provinces (the usual Western European colonizers)

There really aren't too many cases that fall outside these two general dynamics. Therefore, Paradox could really make it so that you can only colonize coastal provinces unless there is a land connection to your capital/your capital is on the same continent (that way Russia can still colonize Siberia and colonial nations can still expand in the Americas). Disable the automatic formation of colonial nations and make it elective. Either form a colonial nation and relinquish direct control or be confined to coastal provinces, it's up to the player.

And to prevent players from forming colonial nations in the wrong places like the interior of Africa, things could still be restricted by region. I think that we can all agree where colonial regions would go (the Americas, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand). Trade company regions can go pretty much everywhere else- West and East Africa, the Middle East, India, Indochina, China, Indonesia, etc.

It's certainly a radical shift, and I don't think that it's the most likely way that Paradox would accommodate changes to Africa, but I think it's actually quite viable.

A large, large number fall outside of these cases. Most of French North America, for instance, was government directed settlement (on the forts & fur model) that went up the Mississippi & St. Lawrence and was centrally directed. Spanish settlement along the Brazos, Rio Grande, etc. was also centrally directed at times.

Dutch South Africa also settled into the interior with as much state direct as occurred from the coast.

And of course there is Australia which was a penal colony with direct crown control of where settlement was allowed to occur.

The truth is settlement was much less government directed than anything in EUIV, on the other hand, the resulting colonies were much less independent than any sort of colonial nation.

 

[mcmanusaur]

I think the fort system is pretty much the extent what we're going to get to make warfare more realistic, but even so I don't think it makes sense to give one region such a comparatively poor treatment. Supply lines would be nice but I don't think Paradox is interested in putting more emphasis on logistics. At the very least, the power projection mechanic should have more to do with nations' ability to fight distant wars, but that wouldn't really be a solution for ahistorical expeditions in this region.

 

[Duarte]

Guys you know that every province has a loot bar, so why not reducing the supply limit world wide, making this the base supply limit but depending on the loot bar of the province (full, half or empty) your army is on, the supply limit is higher the fuller the loot bar is, and if you want to field a larger armies you can use more cavalry, which allows you to field even more troops but for an increasingly limited time (has cavalry reduces the loot bar quicker). Doesn't this represent period logistics more accurately?

 

[BrokenSky]

If by help, you mean make the game less historical, then sure.

Period logistics made it easier to sail a doomstack across the ocean than to fight 100 miles away overland. In the EUIV era armies obtained virtually everything they needed to fight as they went. Daily rations were never carted with the army, they were bought/stolen/pillaged from the locals. Very rarely food might be shipped along river courses. Weapons and armor were durable and were carried by the men. Shot was collected after battle and recast; if you won a battle you rarely ran low. Powder, well powder would run low ... if you fought. Cash was sometimes transported with armies, but even that was rare as plunder formed the mainstay of pay in this era.

Throughout the period the effective fighting strength of European armies typically increased as distant campaigns wore on as local tribes, kingdoms, and mercenaries signed on.

This not WWII were you have a steady consumption stream of manufactured goods that required you not too stray to far a fleet of ships, trucks, and trains connecting the sharp point of the army with the industrial centers back home. This is an era where the enemy literally has everything you need to survive and can only destroy it he is willing to inflict very significant harm on himself.

What kept Africa clear of Europeans was in part disease, but more it was the fact that what was lucrative in Africa (e.g. the slave & ivory trades) could be efficiently dominated from the coast and taking over large swathes of the interior was viewed as an inefficient endeavor. Even the wildest incursions of quasi-armies of Portugal in Kongo were little more than small core of European forces with a huge number of native allies. It just wasn't worth it for Portugal to send enough manpower to subdue Kongo - Spain would invade over the borders or the Dutch would attack Brazil or the British would go after their positions India.

So what you're saying is that having a fully depleted loot bar should reduce supply limit by a ton; maybe up to 80%? Because when loot bar is empty, the army has run out of supplies to loot. Having logistics trains would still be good IMO though; having a chain of occupied enemy and unoccupied owned provinces to the capital or the nearest fort (including unblocked sea tiles) should increase the rate of reinforcements from manpower. Not having these would make the better option resorting, as you mentioned, to locals (i.e. Mercenaries recruited in occupied provinces).