Why Common Sense lacks, well, common sense!

[Bavarian Steve]

Mea culpa.

The English didn't use Indians? That's news. How bout the Spanish in mesoamerica? The Iberians in Morocco? Napoleon got wrecked, but he was at the end of the timeline and he was going through extreme winter in scorched earth conditions: his example is the exception that proves the rule, with respect to the relative unimportance of supply lines in the EU4 era.

Already addressed the merc thing. The game explicitly disallows merc recruitment on foreign continents, and they're way too expensive to simulate the kind of organic low-cost overseas recruitment that actually happened in history.

The point is that yes, you can make realism arguments all over the place, but the reality was so complex that there's a solid chance you'll make things less historical in the final analysis if you fixate on any one facet of warfare in the EU4 era. Forcing people to hire mercs in Europe to transport over to South America instead of letting them reinforce naturally overseas is a perfect example of a potential fix that sounds right on its face, but would be utterly pointless and arguably deleterious in practice, because it would ignore all of the ways that that real Europeans not only reinforced, but grew in fighting strength as they went through the New World.

Then there's all the stuff I just wrote, and you just glossed over, about the realistic toll of attrition and combat versus the toll of both in EU4. Then there's the fact that this entire discussion started in reference to supply lines, but somewhere along the way you two fixated on reinforcement by itself. But you can't divorce those two issues: reinforcements would have been generally less important in foreign territory than they are in EU4 precisely because supply lines weren't important, and thus the only real way you were gonna lose significant amounts of troops (barring extreme conditions) is through battle. And as I pointed out, there were fewer battles per war in history than there are in EU4.

All of this stuff is interrelated. And like it or not, the current abstracted system does a pretty decent job.

EDIT: moderated my tone. Saw your edit, Steve. Fair enough and no worries.

Are we arguing against each other for the same side? I am saying that the games mechanics are ok for what they are trying to achieve. Supply lines was the evolution of the original post about the fort behaviors. Then at some point I listed reasons why supply lines were important. After reading ( I think your rebuttal about why supply lines were not important during this time), I refined my discussion to focus on the need for new troops to reinforce armies. At that point I wasn't discussing mercenaries. Then mercenary availability across seas became an issue. As far as those go, I think they (mercenaries) would better reflect what i think you are expressing, foreign men joining your banner. My best estimate as to why they are not available overseas to reflect this would be the fact that overseas provinces have different troop types than what our chosen nation has, ie western vs native if playing a western nation vs north america.

 

[Aries666]

In relation to the topic of discussion, would those troops actually be better reflected by mercenaries in game, or reinforcements? This whole thread has kind of gotten off topic. I was originally supporting the position that even in the early years of this game that supply lines were important and the importance of developing the supply line is reflected in an acceptable way by the new fort system.

My opinion, if we are considering conscripted natives as reinforcents then it would not make sense for them to be mercs as I imagine many of these troops were forcefully conscripted or poorly paid.

However, I feel the whole conversation is quite esoteric. The current system uses far larger armies. Smaller historic armies could live off the land and conflicts, particularly early in the time frame were sufficiently localised that armies would campaign in the spring/summer within easy reach of friendly territory and return to friendly territory or newly captured cities to winter. None of this is or could reasonably be simulated in game.

Purely in terms of gameplay warfare generally works well and I feel there is little point in trying to relate every feature back to real life because none of it is truely realistic.

 

[FrigidSoul]

Are we arguing against each other for the same side? I am saying that the games mechanics are ok for what they are trying to achieve. Supply lines was the evolution of the original post about the fort behaviors. Then at some point I listed reasons why supply lines were important. After reading ( I think your rebuttal about why supply lines were not important during this time), I refined my discussion to focus on the need for new troops to reinforce armies. At that point I wasn't discussing mercenaries. Then mercenary availability across seas became an issue. As far as those go, I think they (mercenaries) would better reflect what i think you are expressing, foreign men joining your banner. My best estimate as to why they are not available overseas to reflect this would be the fact that overseas provinces have different troop types than what our chosen nation has, ie western vs native if playing a western nation vs north america.

Yep, pretty sure we've been coming at the same position from different angles.

My opinion, if we are considering conscripted natives as reinforcents then it would not make sense for them to be mercs as I imagine many of these troops were forcefully conscripted or poorly paid.

However, I feel the whole conversation is quite esoteric. The current system uses far larger armies. Smaller historic armies could live off the land and conflicts, particularly early in the time frame were sufficiently localised that armies would campaign in the spring/summer within easy reach of friendly territory and return to friendly territory or newly captured cities to winter. None of this is or could reasonably be simulated in game.

Purely in terms of gameplay warfare generally works well and I feel there is little point in trying to relate every feature back to real life because none of it is truely realistic.

Exactly.

 

[Korsan82]

I think EU4 is going through a identity crisis. It's a historical simulator where realism isn't a meaningful argument to work as a game design basis. WTF? If all it's about is about fun (quite an abstraction because what can be entertaining to one person might not be to another), then why not put modern weaponry in the game? Wouldn't it be fun?

And speaking of fun and realism not being a meaningful argument, in which of this 2 categories current regency mechanics fits?

It also seems that people don't realize that keeping stuff as close to "reality" doesn't need any explanation in gameplay terms, as it is logical. EUIV is full of "unnatural" stuff which the player can't understand by judging realism. We have to study the rules before we can fully enjoy the game as many elements of the game are not self explaining as it should be. You have abstract value X Y and Z and so on which all come with their own set of rules.
If the design philosophy followed a more realistic approach you wouldn't need so many "mana categories".

And that's my biggest point of criticism of EUIV and it seems that future Paradox games follow this path, such as the Führer mana in HOI which will come soon

 

[doktorstick]

Meh. Regencies aren't the only annoying roadblock to war. If you only have HRE members as targets and the Emperor is at war, you can just sit on your thumb for five years. Another dumb mechanic. That's the PERFECT time to attack, IMO. But no....

 

[AndrewT]

Several off-topic and inflammatory posts deleted.

No penalties handed out yet, but please remember that these forums are for civilised and factual discussion, insults and disparaging remarks about others' posts are not allowed.

 

[Angeleyed]

'Simple to use, complex to master' is pretty much my definition of an ideal feature.

Blizzard logic.... Please dont make the same mistakes they did. Some things are supposed to be complex or hard. (e.g. Talent trees, army composition, value of actions)

 

[carlleach99]

This would make the whole 1.12 fort system pointless. The entire point is to be able to create safe zones for your army even if massively outnumbered, if we did this we might as well roll back to 1.11's fort system (and we're not).

Well it's hard to feel safe in "safe zones" when the AI ignores your forts and their ZOC and walks wherever it pleases.

 

[andreacento]

If the enemy siege my fort and I try to attack them to stop the siege, do I have any advantage? I mean: If I am outnumbered, I can only watch my fort "burn" or I have any possibility to attack the attacker ?

 

[Wizzington]

Well it's hard to feel safe in "safe zones" when the AI ignores your forts and their ZOC and walks wherever it pleases.

That would be true if they did, but they don't. No difference between player and AI in how forts block them.

 

[lolada]

Blizzard logic.... Please dont make the same mistakes they did. Some things are supposed to be complex or hard. (e.g. Talent trees, army composition, value of actions)

I was fun of blizzard buying every game before but they went so commercial with everything they just ruined franchises. To ruin a game like Diablo is a real insane achievement. They were also very slow and inflexible with patches. Paradox is lightyears ahead with customer interaction.

 

[grommile]

It also seems that people don't realize that keeping stuff as close to "reality" doesn't need any explanation in gameplay terms, as it is logical. EUIV is full of "unnatural" stuff which the player can't understand by judging realism. We have to study the rules before we can fully enjoy the game as many elements of the game are not self explaining as it should be. You have abstract value X Y and Z and so on which all come with their own set of rules.

Most people have a sufficiently flimsy grasp of period logistics that meticulous realism would, in fact, create the need for people to study the rules before they could enjoy the game at all, never mind "fully".

Heck, most people's grasp of period logistics is just plain wrong in half a dozen different ways.

 

[Neoton]

Yep, that's the single most annoying feature in EU for me. I understand that realism is not the definitive goal of the game but you need some level of realism to feel immersed in it. Every feature should have at least a small historical foundation in order to be added(imo) and this feature has none. It sure as hell doesn't represent supply limits because situations like this one and this one are a common sight. So what is this feature supposed to represent? Walls between provinces? Force fields? Or maybe some sort of magic?

 

[grumphie]

Yep, that's the single most annoying feature in EU for me. I understand that realism is not the definitive goal of the game but you need some level of realism to feel immersed in it. Every feature should have at least a small historical foundation in order to be added(imo) and this feature has none. It sure as hell doesn't represent supply limits because situations like this one and this one are a common sight. So what is this feature supposed to represent? Walls between provinces? Force fields? Or maybe some sort of magic?

an abstraction of a series of forts and other fortifications that make it practically impossible to simply advance further.

is it perfect? no, it's not. but with current cimputing power it's NEVER going to be perfect. besides, the game has to stay fun. hence we have tteleporting generals, can instantly give commands to armies half the world away and we don't have to bother with amkign sure our armies have enough metal and the like. as far as realism goes forts are fairly alright - the other option would be to make them so complicated the AI would never be able to handle them which would be a far worse outcome.

 

[greendevil]

Biggest issue with this is probably the AI.

This... AI appears to be really dumb when fighting with you, and excessively witty (knowing also the exact location of your troops when he shouldn't be knowing it -> fog of war) when fighting against you. That didn't happen in the last patches, but it appears to not fighting battles with you (when it should, because they would be winnable), resting idly in far away provinces without moving, and so on. It has downscaled the gaming experience by a lot, to me.

 

[Aries666]

That would be true if they did, but they don't. No difference between player and AI in how forts block them.

This would seem to suggest there are some bugs then:

I posted a bug report didn't hear anything back. Both these armies went all the way from the Nogai border to Canton where they began sieges, passing several forts along the way.

 

[Maldazar]

That printscreen makes it VERY hard to assess anything, you need to show the path they passed, else it's useless... because from that printscreen alone I can't see a single reason why they could not be where they are.. I don't see any fort that would have blocked them from getting where they are right now. So either you didn't understand well how the ZoC of fort work, or you need to show more printscreens to prove that there is actualy a bug here.. because with me it always worked as intended.. I might not always agree with how it's intended to work (the trick to get military access to a neighbour just to pass forts is kind of lame.. but it IS currently working as intended (although they hopefully change that a little.

 

[Woifee]

Ha, no. They came from THE local populace, OR your own.

So... I'm a feudal monarchy fighting another feudal monarchy in europe. My cav are knights and nobles. To reinforce them I ask the local nobles who has sworn fealty to their Lord, and his lord to their king, my enemy. Doesn't make sense at all.
In this war, I just reinforced my knights with local farmer, i also lost a few canons, so I need some. Luckily all the farmers arround me are so thankful for raping their women, burning their farms and stealing their food, they take their artillery out of their barn and join my army. Doesn't make sense... at all.

Of course I could steal the canon, but how many farmers have a fracking canon? I don't.

Yes, mercs can easily reinforce everywhere, also my Infantry could do that if I recruit them from lowborns, but for sure not nobles or artillery.

 

[Aries666]

That printscreen makes it VERY hard to assess anything, you need to show the path they passed, else it's useless... because from that printscreen alone I can't see a single reason why they could not be where they are.. I don't see any fort that would have blocked them from getting where they are right now. So either you didn't understand well how the ZoC of fort work, or you need to show more printscreens to prove that there is actualy a bug here.. because with me it always worked as intended.. I might not always agree with how it's intended to work (the trick to get military access to a neighbour just to pass forts is kind of lame.. but it IS currently working as intended (although they hopefully change that a little.

No you are entirely incorrect, GH is currently in Tsaidam moving to Xining. Both provinces are in the ZoC of Zhangye. The only legit move is to go to Zhangye. GH also walked straight through the fort in Korla to get where it is but I don't have a picture of that.

Furthermore if you had looked at it properly you can see that there is no path GH could have taken to get to Tsaidam without bypassing the ZoC of one of the forts at Korla, Zhangye or Gyegu.

 

[doktorstick]

That would be true if they did, but they don't. No difference between player and AI in how forts block them.

Perhaps, but it doesn't make sense. The enemy moved through a forted province in the example I reported in the bug forum: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/1-12-2-bypassing-fort-with-picture.864494/. To the lay person, my dollars to doughnuts says they would expect the AI to be blocked in that case; it's intuitive behavior, yet it wasn't.

What I think needs to happen is that a stack needs to store a from_province attribute that records the province they moved from. If they move on to a fort, they can only return to from_province. Stacks on a fort with different from_province values cannot be merged (similar to the locked movement merged mechanic).