|
That would take two years, and be called EU5. Still should do it though.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:07
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Oh my god I think they upstaged Corruption. The Professionalism chart is a loving farce.dev diary posted:20 - Supply Depot Ability unlocked for army. (2 years of 50% extra supply in a province, lost instantly if an enemy takes it) Supply Depot - Should be available by default, should last longer. An Army does not to be "professional" to establish a supply depot, and it definitely should not cost mil power Refill Garrison - Should be available by default, should cost milpower just like assaulting and cannon blasting a fort. An Army being more professional does not make it's soldiers more capable of garrisoning a fortress once they sized it. Disbanded Units are returned to the manpower pool - Should be how it works by default, this is loving stupidity in its purest form Military Generals cost half-price to recruit - The way generals are recruited needs to be overhauled in the first place, this helps mitigate the awful way it works right now. A nice boon to have if you have high Military TRADITION. Your reserves take 50% less morale damage. - A nice bonus to have if you have high Military TRADITION. I need a bigger 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That would take two years, and be called EU5. I'm really okay with that at this point. I don't know what they need to do, but they need to rethink how DLC works going with their next generation of games. Paying a subscription to a single player game doesn't quite work, but they need to do seasons or something, and fold old seasons into the base game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Oh my god I think they upstaged Corruption. The Professionalism chart is a loving farce. Given what I've seen in the Military History thread about armies of that time period, most of that poo poo is downright unrealistic for any amount of professionalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
EUIV won't get rolled into EUV until they want to revamp trade again + one more core system like colonisation or autonomy. Which is a shame because it's getting too complex to be enjoyable for even us veterans as far as I can tell. My read is that these mini-expansions are being used to fund the map revisions on various parts of the globe, but hopefully this doesn't go for too much longer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:
Mercenaries in the EU4 time period were often closer to looters than soldiers, especially in peak EU4 (30 years' war) time period. That said EU4 does a really poor job of modelling regular armies, which really shouldn't exist for most of the time period.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
I think the thing its self seems pretty cool, fun, and addresses a significant balance issue, but I agree it should have not been yet another discrete system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
I also think mercs just need a harder nerf in general. Smaller pool of available units, increasingly escalating costs, etc. Having a big proportion of your forces be mercs is fine for a small nation, but a big country should only be able to use them as supplementary forces, and China or whatever hiring 100,000+ mercs is just inane. EDIT: Which reminds me, I keep meaning to just flat out mod mercs out of the game for a test and see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
just pretend regular soldiers are mercs and mercs are super mercs
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Make Army Professionalism tied to the Mandate of Heaven so the Ming is punished for merc spam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:Yeah, it really feels like they should have just used this as an excuse to flesh out Army Tradition and give it all of these effects. I guess they probably want a more obvious feature to sell, but this is just kind of annoying, especially with how weirdly obtuse army tradition is in the current version of the game. Professionalism isn't even a DLC feature so I don't know why the gently caress it has to work this way. I actually like the concept but why can't it just replace army tradition or at least supplant it in some ways. Let army tradition be specifically to do with officer recruitment or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
And there's still absolutely no way to automate your armies. Late game sure is fun and not at all tedious when you have to control hundreds of thousands of troops across the entire world manually!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
there is, there's automated rebel suppression which alleviates the main reason you'd actually want to let your dudes do things unattended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:And there's still absolutely no way to automate your armies. Late game sure is fun and not at all tedious when you have to control hundreds of thousands of troops across the entire world manually! It does seem like it would be cool to have a 'front commander' type AI, where you could assign the 25k troops and 30 ships in South Africa to take Objective Forts A & B, and the AI would just have at it and report back to when done. Like, for minor theateres with low threat levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:And there's still absolutely no way to automate your armies. Late game sure is fun and not at all tedious when you have to control hundreds of thousands of troops across the entire world manually! I honestly don't think I'd want the AI controlling my armies. I mean, I guess maybe a 'run away if there's any danger' checkbox, but what else would you really automate? If you really want AI control of your armies, feel free to attach to a friendly AI army, but they always manage to screw up in new and interesting ways whenever I do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
I'd be fine with the just the ability to hand over control of an army to the AI. The AI is definitely capable of getting poo poo done, and when you've got a million dudes to smash into the enemy you don't need whoever's controlling them to be perfect. In any case I think it's ridiculous that you need to manually control every unit in a game of this scope and scale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:It does seem like it would be cool to have a 'front commander' type AI, where you could assign the 25k troops and 30 ships in South Africa to take Objective Forts A & B, and the AI would just have at it and report back to when done. Like, for minor theateres with low threat levels. Similarly, it would be very nice to assign an army to a region or whatever, tell it to defend this from any stacks it thinks it can beat, and yell if a more powerful army enters. Would be even better for Fleets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Only one way to stop the game from heading more and more into this bad direction, stop buying the DLCs. They need to refocus and merge systems, because some of it is just way too complex and achieves nothing. This Army Tradition V2 is a perfect example for it. EU4 has been on a downwards slope for the last two DLCs, hopefully they fix that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:I honestly don't think I'd want the AI controlling my armies. I mean, I guess maybe a 'run away if there's any danger' checkbox, but what else would you really automate? carpet sieging, that poo poo is incredibly tedious and if you get to the point where you can do it safely theres not much reason not to do it this is already kind of in the game but you can only retake things that rebels have captured from you. even if it was just Rebel Suppression But Also War Enemies that'd be plenty
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
They already have a really great system for automating fleet actions, why not have a similar system for armies? I just want to select an army and give it general orders like "hold the frontline" or "besiege enemy forts" or "hunt down enemy armies", not specific orders like "go to Stockholm and do absolutely nothing until I tell you to".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:I'm glad for army tradition and army professionalism to be two entirely different and completely unrelated statistics If you're Prussia you het militarization too!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I also think mercs just need a harder nerf in general. Smaller pool of available units, increasingly escalating costs, etc. Alternatively, the Condottieri system and mercenaries could be combined into a sort of middle ground between the two - since they're basically modelling the same thing as far as I can tell? Hiring mercs would then be a diplomatic action of sorts, though probably best integrated into a simple recruitment interface which just showed you available mercs (based on whether these countries actually wanted to allow you to hire their troops), their cost, the country you're hiring them from, and how large a chunk of the cost the country in question gets. With the addition of national ideas that modify those numbers, you could make it so some countries can even make mercenaries a significant part of their income. In both cases, the number of available mercs relative to your own army would drop as you grow larger, plus you might grow so large that countries would be more reluctant to offer your mercs, further restricting their use. Conversely, if you're rivaling/fighting the country everyone is afraid of, you'd be able to supplement your forces far more easily - which would be a natural anti-snowballing mechanism. Fister Roboto posted:They already have a really great system for automating fleet actions, why not have a similar system for armies? I just want to select an army and give it general orders like "hold the frontline" or "besiege enemy forts" or "hunt down enemy armies", not specific orders like "go to Stockholm and do absolutely nothing until I tell you to".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
I agree 100% with Fister Roboto - the game needs something to reduce micro in mid-to-late game wars. Needing to occupy dozens (or hundreds) of individual provinces manually is a huuuuge slog. Even if I had the ability to tell little 1 man armies to occupy any land in state/region autonomously, with a checkbox to avoid hostile armies, I would be a really happy camper. Right now they are making army management more complicated without removing any of the tedium. I also think that they need to make level 6 and 8 forts more expensive both to build and maintain (50% for level 6 and 200% for level 8) - anyone covering their country in them is just annoying as gently caress to deal with and historically no one had that many massive fortification complexes across the length and breadth of their lands - they were used strategically in highly important areas (crossings, passes, major cities, ect). Lower level forts still block movement and re-claim adjacent provinces from occupiers so there would not be a loss of functionality, but it would mean that high-level forts would be a more strategic decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
As part of the merc nerf you could let the player spend money to increase recruitment and effectively buy manpower (with diminishing returns) and draft/press manpower with big war exhaustion & stability hit. Remove the current mercs altogether and enhance the condottori system. Or.. yeah... add "army tradition 2" instead...
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:As part of the merc nerf you could let the player spend money to increase recruitment and effectively buy manpower (with diminishing returns) and draft/press manpower with big war exhaustion & stability hit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Mercenaries in the EU4 time period were often closer to looters than soldiers, especially in peak EU4 (30 years' war) time period. this is really untrue, read some of HEY GAL's posts in the milhist thread, she studies 30YW mercs sure they provisioned themselves by looting and extorting from local villages but they were definitely professional soldiers and for many of them it was a family affair, your dad was a merc and you grew up in army camps then you became a merc too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:This is already in the game with the State Edict granting a manpower increase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
So I'm playing Castile as my first game, took over most of Iberia and lucked into a personal union over England (which sent my Aggressive Expansion through the goddamned roof since I had to fight Austria for it) by 1500. England is the only other colonizing power so far so I have no real competition on that front. I picked Exploration/Expansion as my first ideas. From searching online it sounds like most people view Expansion as a trap pick? I picked it up for the quick extra colonist but am curious about what everyone else thinks of it. I'm starting to wish I'd gone with Administrative instead since my coring costs are pretty intense and the bonuses from Expansion are much weaker than Exploration overall. Are the military ideas relatively well balanced? I'm looking into picking up either Quantity or Offensive but leaning toward the former because my manpower is heavily depleted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
I'm no expert but Expansion seems pretty much garbage to me and I can't think of any reason to pick it over any other admin idea group. Those are considered very good choices for military ideas. Military ideas are fairly well balanced, if you ignore Naval. Not sure about Aristocratic but it does provide some nice bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Eldred posted:So I'm playing Castile as my first game, took over most of Iberia and lucked into a personal union over England (which sent my Aggressive Expansion through the goddamned roof since I had to fight Austria for it) by 1500. England is the only other colonizing power so far so I have no real competition on that front. Quality and Defensive are the two people usually go with, which one is a matter of taste. Offensive is pretty okay, too. Quantity is a bit of a trap. You get more troops, but they don't fight nearly as well. Especially when you run into France's 20% morale bonus. Take it only if you're really having trouble with manpower.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Eldred posted:So I'm playing Castile as my first game, took over most of Iberia and lucked into a personal union over England (which sent my Aggressive Expansion through the goddamned roof since I had to fight Austria for it) by 1500. England is the only other colonizing power so far so I have no real competition on that front.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
I started the flame of the revolution but it's giving me an absolutely ridiculous -100 papal influence. What the gently caress? I have amazing relations with the Papal States, religious ideas and 100% true faith everywhere. Why would they get so blorged about things? It takes away the entire point in being Catholic. It's like if it gave a -100% penalty to church power and fervor as well. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
hadn't you heard that being a fanatic absolutist is a necessary component of Catholicism
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Poil posted:I started the flame of the revolution but it's giving me an absolutely ridiculous -100 papal influence. What the gently caress? I have amazing relations with the Papal States, religious ideas and 100% true faith everywhere. Why would they get so blorged about things? It takes away the entire point in being Catholic. It's like if it gave a -100% penalty to church power and fervor as well. Part of the revolution involved telling the pope to go gently caress himself, and refusing to accept papal supremacy on any matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Bah. But then why didn't I get any negative relations at all? They're still at 170+ relations. And why would my government and people suddenly not listen to the pope? The popes have done nothing but being bros and supporting no matter what my country did. We would be all like hey we're running this place in this way now and the pope would be all like cool I support you guys as always and if you want to I can tell the other nations god is totally in favor of you guys and we'd be like thanks dude and things would remain good. Poil fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Poil posted:Bah. But then why didn't I get any negative relations at all? They're still at 170+ relations. Well I mean they got to protect the brand, it ain't personal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
"But they were just so darn nice about it!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Poil posted:Bah. But then why didn't I get any negative relations at all? They're still at 170+ relations. The pope as leader of the Catholic Church has different interests than the pope as leader of the Papal State.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Eldred posted:So I'm playing Castile as my first game, took over most of Iberia and lucked into a personal union over England (which sent my Aggressive Expansion through the goddamned roof since I had to fight Austria for it) by 1500. England is the only other colonizing power so far so I have no real competition on that front. Expansion isn't very good unless you're a colonizer, which you are. You can drop it later in the game (late 1600s or so) when the extra colonist becomes less valuable. Quantity or Defensive would probably be my top picks in your situation. Castile gets morale and discipline from their ideas and a strong Age bonus (Tercios) so your armies will still be pretty decent. However, you will want a large army to expand your colonial holdings, fight in Europe, and also keep England happy. Having a large army reduces their Liberty Desire. Exploration-Expansion-Quantity (or Defensive) is 100% what I would pick as Castile, Portugal, or England.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Friendship transcends politics 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:39
|
|
