Well, you can't just jump over walls without the gates being opened or wall being breached(and when you got walls breached almost all assault succeds).
What EU4 Will Need (and Not Need)
- Thread starter Zenith Darksea
- 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.
Mod, you should get rid of the history forum all together. You realize that forum is completely empty, right?
edit: more like that interesting topics are raised from game discussions and history forum is *relatively* empitier. conversations by nature don't stay on single topic.
edit: more like that interesting topics are raised from game discussions and history forum is *relatively* empitier. conversations by nature don't stay on single topic.
Last edited:
Oh that's too bad. There were debates about Poland and Lithuania just a while ago.
Well truth thats realy a pitty, as i would like to learn something possibly, and make a nice disscussion.
There are also lots of history-related threads located in the OT forum. There's also another Polandball there if you are interested.
I'd like to see the number of naval provinces dramatically increased, at least for places like the Mediterranean. I think it should be easier to travel from point A to point B while at war while still avoiding enemy fleets.
In general I'm a fan of the horde system (although I seem to on my own on that in this forum!).
However, what really annoys me is that they still appear at your border creating another stupid war even though they are fully occupied by another nation. I was the HRE and had high war exhaustion after a previous war when the Kazakhs appeared even though they were fully occupied by Khorasan I think. I then had to concede defeat to get they rid of them losing 5 prestige.
However, what really annoys me is that they still appear at your border creating another stupid war even though they are fully occupied by another nation. I was the HRE and had high war exhaustion after a previous war when the Kazakhs appeared even though they were fully occupied by Khorasan I think. I then had to concede defeat to get they rid of them losing 5 prestige.
Last edited:
I recon P-Dox should drastically reduce the number of provinces, so eg. France has only one province. You should also make the graphics much worse whilst simultaneously making them harder to process. Then you should replace the technology system with an incomprehensible tech tree, and hobble the AI until it cannot even perform land attacks, let alone naval invasions. Finally, you need to increase loading times tenfold and introduce loading messages bragging constantly about how awesome SpeedTree (tm) is and how many famous museums provided you with ship plans.
I recon P-Dox should drastically reduce the number of provinces, so eg. France has only one province. You should also make the graphics much worse whilst simultaneously making them harder to process. Then you should replace the technology system with an incomprehensible tech tree, and hobble the AI until it cannot even perform land attacks, let alone naval invasions. Finally, you need to increase loading times tenfold and introduce loading messages bragging constantly about how awesome SpeedTree (tm) is and how many famous museums provided you with ship plans.
Hey, Empire's not that bad. The single Tac Battles, at least on MP are pretty awesome. I watch PrinceofMacedon on Youtube, BTW. He's awesome.
Early colonialism should be replaced by a network of trade posts. You could establish trade posts in provinces, that either have no owner, or you have friendly relations with the owner. These trade posts would depict both actual trading colonies and small scale colonial ventures. Provinces would have V2 style life rating or something similar, allowing mass colonization progressively with technological progress. Making it hard or impossible to mass colonize inhospitable places such as tropical areas that were colonized only after EU3 time period.
The trade posts should be thought carefully in order to be worthwhile (unlike tp's in EU2), so that even during the late game it would be a real decision whether to colonize or establish a simple trade post.
edit: maybe have merchants establish these tp's instead of colonists?
The trade posts should be thought carefully in order to be worthwhile (unlike tp's in EU2), so that even during the late game it would be a real decision whether to colonize or establish a simple trade post.
edit: maybe have merchants establish these tp's instead of colonists?
I think the simplest thing they could do to improve EUIII would be to make it so an army which does not control a province's fort cannot get defensive bonuses while in that province. It's silly to have to constantly have the enemy get defense bonuses when they're the one invading your country.
I wouldn't think so. When you lay siege your goal is to prevent anyone fgrom the outside getting in and vice versa, until you yourself take over the fortifications. In order to do that you set up an encampment, you dig trenches and make fortifications of your own. I't much more understandable for a sieging unit to gain defensive boni than one that just happens to arrive a day earlier than the other army!
Sieges make armies vulnerable. They aren't operating at full capacity because part of the army is facing inward, to the besieged fortress, and part is facing outward to deal with the incoming enemy force. Yet an army besieging a hostile enemy fortress in the mountains gets the same bonus as an army defending its home territory. It's a stupid mechanic that just makes it even harder for small countries to defend themselves because the enemy can send in multiple armies to besiege multiple fortresses, and every time the defending country tries to relieve their own fort, they have to deal with an enemy just as entrenched as if they were in their own territory. It actually makes it more difficult to defend yourself when your country is made of mountains since small countries can only have an army large enough to protect one province at a time.
Certainly the incoming army shouldn't get the defensive bonus either, rather it should be even, or at most limited to a -1 for the incoming army.
Certainly the incoming army shouldn't get the defensive bonus either, rather it should be even, or at most limited to a -1 for the incoming army.
The defence bonus is about natural choke points that give the defender a certain choice in preparing defences or the location of where to do battle.
This works when you occupy the province, whether it is your own or not.
Also, warfare in this period was about a whole network of fortifications, not just a capital, so occupation of a province would imply already occupying a lot of local fortifications.
I don't think the way war was waged in this period justifies your proposals.
Yes, and an army busy besieging a fortification can't exactly make the best use of such things. Just look at the 1683 Siege of Vienna. The point is the game completely ignores the benefits controlling local fortifications gives during battle, to the point where sieging forts and attacking armies are completely separated in game terms. There's the game of maneuver, in which your armies move back and forth across the map and the only thing that matters is who gets to the good terrain first, then once their armies are dead you drop 1,000 men on each province and watch the enemy forts fall without them being able to resist at all.
You can say that any given system does not match up with the way war was fought in this period, but unless every aspect of the combat system matches up with the way war was actually fought, then that doesn't make sense as an argument. Real life also had logistics, paralyzing internal politics, disloyal generals, unruly troops, weather concerns, and so on. Game balance should be the priority.
Look at Switzerland as a thought experiment. It's a country that should be able to defend itself fairly easily as it is all mountains. Now imagine that it gets invaded from every direction. Switzerland has an 18k stack, and the enemies drop stacks on all of its border provinces. Switzerland defeats the first stack in 'border province A' as it has the defensive bonus. Now it has to deal with enemy armies on every other province. So it goes after 'border province B' and defeats the defending enemies, but during the battle an army has begun besieging province A again. Switzerland is defending itself, yet every single battle it engages in from here on out involves the invaders having a defensive bonus. This is absurd.
Last edited:
Well, if they came when swiss army was absent, they might have enough time to prepare some defence. Also, swiss got their army everywhere in switzerland now XD. I would dare to say that no country except pretty ruthless one like soviet russia, would dare to attack them, as the casualties would be too high to be worth the conquest(and except banks, what swiss realy have? Any natural resources?)
Well, I just read the memoires of Francisco Verdugo, the Spanish Governor of what in EU3 forms Friesland and Gelre, during the so called War of Sconces, part of the 80 years war, from 1581 to 1594.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Verdugo
Although strategically it is mostly a story of insufficient resources and economically exhausting the area, tactically it is a constant game of siege, defence, manoeuvre around passes through the marshes. Armies are constantly shifting between defensive operations, preparing sieges, moves to support adjacent theatres. Ongoing sieges can be left with a minimum nr of soldiers.
On many occasions a local situation has been won without fighting by arriving first in a favourable location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Verdugo
Although strategically it is mostly a story of insufficient resources and economically exhausting the area, tactically it is a constant game of siege, defence, manoeuvre around passes through the marshes. Armies are constantly shifting between defensive operations, preparing sieges, moves to support adjacent theatres. Ongoing sieges can be left with a minimum nr of soldiers.
On many occasions a local situation has been won without fighting by arriving first in a favourable location.
Better AI, if you are war with much bigger country you can't win, just raise their war exhaustion, extend the lenght of war and perhaps take some meaningless undefended province and you can easily white peace or only give some ducats to the AI nation even when they have occupied most of your provinces. Also AI can't organize it's armies and move them where they are really needed so human player can just pick them when one at a time and avoid the big battles.
General:
AI doesn't understand meaning of war well or how it's going.
AI doesn't understand how war exhaustion is really effecting in wartime.
AI throws armies and navies careless into battles they are not winning or doesn't "team" them up.
AI cannot help it's allies in war well with similar reasons.
AI uses expensive mercenaries all the time when not needed.
AI disbands it's troops without reason.
AI doesn't seem to take much strategy to the buildings.
AI doesn't use casus belli and takes stability hit instead.
AI uses inefficient army compositions.
AI cannot handle inflation.
AI doesn't choose ideal war targets allways.
AI takes provinces randomly so that it cannot manage to keep them when they are not connected into their mainland.
AI doesn't colonize well same reason.
AI doesn't even try to become papal controller.
AI doesn't seem to use sliders well.
AI doesn't try to inherit nation when chance.
AI doesn't allways change into more advanced government.
Edit: I meaned to make better overal post of this but shortened it and it came of little less appealing. Some of those depends on other factors too.
General:
AI doesn't understand meaning of war well or how it's going.
AI doesn't understand how war exhaustion is really effecting in wartime.
AI throws armies and navies careless into battles they are not winning or doesn't "team" them up.
AI cannot help it's allies in war well with similar reasons.
AI uses expensive mercenaries all the time when not needed.
AI disbands it's troops without reason.
AI doesn't seem to take much strategy to the buildings.
AI doesn't use casus belli and takes stability hit instead.
AI uses inefficient army compositions.
AI cannot handle inflation.
AI doesn't choose ideal war targets allways.
AI takes provinces randomly so that it cannot manage to keep them when they are not connected into their mainland.
AI doesn't colonize well same reason.
AI doesn't even try to become papal controller.
AI doesn't seem to use sliders well.
AI doesn't try to inherit nation when chance.
AI doesn't allways change into more advanced government.
Edit: I meaned to make better overal post of this but shortened it and it came of little less appealing. Some of those depends on other factors too.
Last edited:
On the subject of rebellions, I think perhaps they should be less frequent, but certainly more threatening when they do happen. I think the way EU:Rome did it should be expanded upon, wherein part of your country actually splits away, causing a sort of civil war rather than just a small stack of units rising up in individual provinces. There should still be those small local rebellions, but the EU:R-esque system would make for a dynamic threat and keep it challenging, because the larger your country, the larger the possible rebellion. Unlike in EU3, where rebellions can completely annihilate small countries, but dealing with them later is like swatting flies; a harmless annoyance. Also, having rebelling provinces split off presents a new way to deal with them, like diplomacy, bribing rebel leaders, or spies to destroy the coherence of the rebels.