|
Fister Roboto posted:One thing I really want them to change is the battle formation algorithms. As it is, there's no way to take advantage of having lots of cavalry without stupid fiddly micromanagement. Let's say you're attacking an army that has a width of 10, and your army has 10 infantry and 10 cavalry. What will happen is that your 10 infantry will line up in front of the enemy's line, four of your cavalry regiments will go on the flanks, and the other six cavalry regiments will do literally nothing. To make matters worse, if you have a 50% inf/cav ration, you'll instantly get the tactics penalty when your infantry take damage. If you actually want your army to fight effectively, you need to split your infantry and cavalry and make sure the cavalry arrive a day before the infantry. It's really dumb and it makes cavalry bonuses a lot less useful than they should be. Does it really loving work like this? Why the hell doesn't it put max cav on the front line and have infantry reinforce from the centre as appropriate? That would seem to be incredibly obvious.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
So how's the new expansion?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:So how's the new expansion? If you just mean all the new content, DLC or no, it's great. I'm having significantly more fun than I had right after MoH hit. If you mean "is the DLC good value" then the answer is probably no as the paid content amounts to a few buttons you can press to make Muslims stronger in various ways, and army professionalism, which isn't really an interesting mechanic at all and is very transparently meant to be part of the core game due to its role as "the thing that makes mercenaries not broken"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Does it really loving work like this? Why the hell doesn't it put max cav on the front line and have infantry reinforce from the centre as appropriate? That would seem to be incredibly obvious. Yep. The algorithm is designed to minimize the amount of direct fire cavalry takes, which usually translates into any more than four cavalry regiments being useless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:One thing I really want them to change is the battle formation algorithms. As it is, there's no way to take advantage of having lots of cavalry without stupid fiddly micromanagement. Let's say you're attacking an army that has a width of 10, and your army has 10 infantry and 10 cavalry. What will happen is that your 10 infantry will line up in front of the enemy's line, four of your cavalry regiments will go on the flanks, and the other six cavalry regiments will do literally nothing. To make matters worse, if you have a 50% inf/cav ration, you'll instantly get the tactics penalty when your infantry take damage. If you actually want your army to fight effectively, you need to split your infantry and cavalry and make sure the cavalry arrive a day before the infantry. It's really dumb and it makes cavalry bonuses a lot less useful than they should be. Seems like at the very least they should change the cavalry ratio formula. For example, they could make it so that it only calculates the ratio for each army when they enter the battle or that it only affects you mid battle if the ratio gets really out of hand, like you go from 50% to 80%. Wait, how is ratio calculated now when multiple armies battle? Is the ratio applied based on the pooled infantry and cavalry of each side? What ratio does it use when you've got nations with different ratios fighting? It sounds like an ally could potentially gently caress you for being at their higher ratio limit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yep. The algorithm is designed to minimize the amount of direct fire cavalry takes, which usually translates into any more than four cavalry regiments being useless. On that note, another plug for the almighty spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ITH6oNHsIlVHo2LJnR92wP5LEKiON0k2rZJ82YbYaB0/edit#gid=0 Unless you're like, a Tengri horde or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Hang on, there are newer versions of units which are worse than the ones they replace? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Anyone else having the French ai put their entire army in Cuba for example. In insane attrition, for years. Seemently shuffling troops back and fourth between the islands they are colonizing. Even doing aggressive wars, with their main force (sometimes all of them) still being over seas, or frozen waiting at the coast for transports that never show up, while they are being invaded? I'v had to tag swap, delete their entire army just to reset it, and force every ship they have to one port so they won't try to transport 50k troops with 3 cogs (when they have 30+ total)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Eldred posted:On that note, another plug for the almighty spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ITH6oNHsIlVHo2LJnR92wP5LEKiON0k2rZJ82YbYaB0/edit#gid=0 Army composition is second only to the trade system in sheer opaque fuckery, but I was under the impression that artillery goes to the back row and always fires and thus having some up to your combat width is always useful, even if it sucks comparatively because it's early in the game. But in this spreadsheet it recommends using absolutely no artillery until MilTech 16, when it suggests going from 0 to 30. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Try reading the whole thing!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Try reading the whole thing! The last part was cut off on my monitor. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
I was gifted Cradle of Civilization by a friend recently and with the current sale going on, I decided to check out the DLC I missed out on (I had every major expansion up to Art of War). Really though, I understand there is a listing in the OP for the various DLC but I am wondering, as a whole has it really improved the game that much? The issues of potential DLC mills aside, has it actually resulted in the game been improved or has it just made a mess of things? I remember a couple of years back, that EUIV had quite a positive outlook put upon it but now it seems like constant complaints of bugs and imbalance, brought about by expansions and then fixed in later expansions where new issues are created. Would it be better to hold out for EUV or w/e at this point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
ahhhhh i wish i could see europe so badly
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:I was gifted Cradle of Civilization by a friend recently and with the current sale going on, I decided to check out the DLC I missed out on (I had every major expansion up to Art of War). Really though, I understand there is a listing in the OP for the various DLC but I am wondering, as a whole has it really improved the game that much? The issues of potential DLC mills aside, has it actually resulted in the game been improved or has it just made a mess of things? I remember a couple of years back, that EUIV had quite a positive outlook put upon it but now it seems like constant complaints of bugs and imbalance, brought about by expansions and then fixed in later expansions where new issues are created. Would it be better to hold out for EUV or w/e at this point? It's just after a DLC launch so bugs/ imbalance complaints are gonna be a big thing right now; the only super-recurring buggy thing most of the time is fort zone of control, and that's normally because its mechanics are really obtuse rather than it actually being buggy. Otherwise though, the DLC (and patches, for that matter- a few of the more hated features like sailors and corruption are free) has basically done both things you said, although "made a mess of things" is maybe a bit strong. The game is a lot better than it was 3 years ago, there are some very significant really good free additions (forts, institutions, states and territories) and a ton has been streamlined and polished, the AI is a lot better, and most of the DLC features are pretty fun. But there is also a shitload of extraneous poo poo that could be better integrated. You can probably figure out what you'll think by playing what you have now, without getting more DLC. In a lot of ways it probably would be better to hold out for EUV though yeah, but you're gonna be waiting a while. Fister Roboto posted:One thing I really want them to change is the battle formation algorithms. As it is, there's no way to take advantage of having lots of cavalry without stupid fiddly micromanagement. Let's say you're attacking an army that has a width of 10, and your army has 10 infantry and 10 cavalry. What will happen is that your 10 infantry will line up in front of the enemy's line, four of your cavalry regiments will go on the flanks, and the other six cavalry regiments will do literally nothing. To make matters worse, if you have a 50% inf/cav ration, you'll instantly get the tactics penalty when your infantry take damage. If you actually want your army to fight effectively, you need to split your infantry and cavalry and make sure the cavalry arrive a day before the infantry. It's really dumb and it makes cavalry bonuses a lot less useful than they should be. I dunno, there are lots of situations you'd not want this I think. Cavalry are more expensive to reinforce and they take more damage for most of the game/ most tech groups, so you'd end up with a line of cavalry that got eviscerated after every artillery-heavy battle and now all your stacks cost a ton more to reinforce. Cavalry being on the flanks works to their strengths, and rearranging the army composition to account for the size of the stack you're fighting / the combat width etc is one of the only parts of the more tactical side of the combat in this game that actually has any depth. Also you're not supposed to have 50/50 inf/cav if you have a 50% ratio, give it some padding to account for losses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
oddium posted:ahhhhh i wish i could see europe so badly Is...that an AI Coptic Ottomans?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
whoah what, does their flag actually change?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
oh sorry no i made that for my coptoman run and forgot to change it
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Cavalry being on the flanks works to their strengths It doesn't though, it plays to the strength of only four cavalry regiments. If you try bringing any more they do nothing but sit around losing morale, unless you micro it to put your cavalry in front. Also four cavalry on the flanks doesn't help that much anyway. It helps kill the four outermost enemy regiments quicker, but once those are dead they stop contributing to the battle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Can't you just bring less infantry?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Then you risk getting the tactics penalty, because your infantry will always be taking the brunt of the damage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Just how much cavalry are you wanting to bring? The combat width at the start of the game is 20 and it ramps up fairly quickly, you can easily fit like 8-10 regiments of cavalry by the time most nations can afford it without having to sweat the tactics penalty. I go heavy on cav and pretty much the only times I ever get the tactics penalty is when I've run out of manpower to replace my infantry losses. I'm not saying army deployment couldn't be improved (maybe it'd be cool if it did more like what you're suggesting depending on the general, or if you're a horde or something) but I'm not sure this is the issue you seem to be making it out to be. Koramei fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Yeah, in general cavalry are also just plain better than infantry at combat, so it doesn't hurt to have more than just 4 even if your flanking bonus won't put more than 4 on the outside. You just need to make sure that your main army is your front line and that you bring reinforcements (men) after that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Just how much cavalry are you wanting to bring? As many as can possibly be afforded, considering how much stronger they are than infantry. Especially if you're a horde. Like, if you can make your front line 100% cavalry as a horde, you will fight far more effectively than if you just roll in with your 60/40 cav/inf army or whatever. This requires annoying micromanagement, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:As many as can possibly be afforded, considering how much stronger they are than infantry. Especially if you're a horde. I mean yeah, but no more so than any normal army engagement if you're topping off morale with reinforcement regiments; to fight optimally you always need to bring a whole bunch of additional dudes in separate stacks and smash them into the battle to top off morale. The only difference with bringing more cavalry is that your primary stack fields a higher cavalry:infantry ratio. Due to the way morale works you basically shouldn't ever bring more than your combat width (admittedly I usually bring +2 infantry over because some people are gonna die in those first days) This is why I don't pick Quantity if I can avoid it, it means more micromanagement
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Hordes (and maybe like, Poland) are the edge case where I could see it being genuinely useful, but most of the time I would rather have my cavalry on the flanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
 I thought the AI wasn't supposed to suddenly break an alliance with no warning when I had 100 trust?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
It's almost as if EU4 combat is an incredibly obtuse and incomprehensible mess and needs revamped. I'm glad we had paid DLC to make China extremely stupid, ahistorical, and unfun to interact with. Paradox has responded so quickly, too! for now, cavalry bonuses are pretty much complete poo poo and hard to take advantage of
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
EU4 combat is cool & good
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
I dunno the siege screen could use a lot of sprucing up, that thing is confusing as hell if you don't already know what everything means. The combat screen is a little easier but still not great. These things are explained better and more simply on the wiki than inside the game, which is weird
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Yeah EU4 combat is fine. You generally know what you need to win and can min max if you want so it works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
I don't really get Mamluk's succession - I can choose one of three dynasties/cultures for my heir, with the third one being "oh he's an outsider from Circassia" with a strong claim (100 legitimacy), a +15 increase to military tradition, and (so far in this game), never worse than a 4-4-4. Why would I pick the other two? Also, Mamluks are a powerhouse now. I am bullying OttoFrance with my Hungarian ally like it's nothing. Military tradition is never below 50, my generals have 5-6-7 shock, and drilling makes them even better. Do they ever start getting weaker?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
Drakhoran posted:I thought the AI wasn't supposed to suddenly break an alliance with no warning when I had 100 trust? Usually, but there is the rare case that it can happen. If they have a mission that gives them claims on your cores, or if they suddenly decide that a few of your provinces are of strategic interest, they'll break the alliance, no matter what your trust is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:I don't really get Mamluk's succession - I can choose one of three dynasties/cultures for my heir, with the third one being "oh he's an outsider from Circassia" with a strong claim (100 legitimacy), a +15 increase to military tradition, and (so far in this game), never worse than a 4-4-4. Why would I pick the other two? It locks out 2 of the government actions right? Since you need to have ruler-cultured land to use them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Also, Mamluks are a powerhouse now. I am bullying OttoFrance with my Hungarian ally like it's nothing. Military tradition is never below 50, my generals have 5-6-7 shock, and drilling makes them even better. Do they ever start getting weaker? I think it has something to do with the government abilities but I didn't really get that part, I just pressed the manpower button whenever I could use it. They are one of the best tags right now. Enough heretic and heathen neighbors to fill the religion bar and press that button all the time, while also being in a good position to abuse exploration to get all the trade from the spice islands/Asia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Hordes (and maybe like, Poland) are the edge case where I could see it being genuinely useful, but most of the time I would rather have my cavalry on the flanks. Even as a non-horde you can pretty consistently stack wipe equal tech armies if you have a full front line of cavalry. The difference is insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:I don't really get Mamluk's succession - I can choose one of three dynasties/cultures for my heir, with the third one being "oh he's an outsider from Circassia" with a strong claim (100 legitimacy), a +15 increase to military tradition, and (so far in this game), never worse than a 4-4-4. Why would I pick the other two? They get to push a button every so often that grats a lot of cash or manpower, scaled to the development of same-culture provinces, [E: and the Age, so the bonuses get larger as the game progresses] IME, an Egyptian ruler can get ~ 600 ducats and ~10.000 manpower. Nothing to sneeze at, especially since the manpower can go above your normal cap. The better your monarchs diplo/mil score, the faster the meter fills up.[E2: apparently the Mamluks also Promote Culture at half the diplo cost]. [E: Also, advisers that share your rulers culture are 25% cheaper for the Mamluks. Not clear on what determines advidor culture, but IME large, accepted cultures tend to be more common] I've no idea whether culture impacts ruler stats, but all Mamluk rulers get +2 adm, so they tend to be pretty good. Caustic Soda fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Thanks all for the answers - I didn't notice that different culture rulers had different buttons. So does the extra legitimacy come from choosing to continue with same culture ruler, or is it a Circassian thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Thanks all for the answers - I didn't notice that different culture rulers had different buttons. Circassian. IIUC, the legitimacy is inversely proportional to the cultures share of total (State?) Development. So unless you go and conquer Circassian culture provs, that option will always have 100 legitimacy. Conversely, I made a custom nation with Mamluk governnent, and at first a main-culture ruler had 0 legitimacy. Which was actually managable, since I picked the one school which grants +1 legitimacy, and consistently picked the Sufi Sheik-ul-Islam which gives +1 Leg. Until ruler death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Using the religious idea bonus it's pretty cheap to convert adjacent provinces to manage culture groups too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Resurgent Byzantium is such fun to play. As soon as you've won one early war against the Ottos (whether by island-blockade cheese or some Albanian alliance Skanderbeg magic or by them tripping over themselves and losing badly to someone else without remembering to stomp you first) and you own Constantinople and Edirne with forts on both, you can kick an immense amount of butt. All you need is an okay navy, and one army stack with a good general that's strong enough to reliably beat one enemy stack at a time. The AI simply cannot resist the temptation to siege your capital; let them cross the straits and set up camp, sail in to block their retreat, then send in the lads... stack wipe, again and again and again. Exploited this to first reduce the Ottoman empire to a tattered remnant in Asia Minor, currently using it to completely wreck the grand coalition of Mamluks and what looks like almost every other Muslim state between the Caucasus and India. Whatever bottom-feeding fish live in the Sea of Marmara must be getting very well-fed by now. What a great strategic position (guess that's why it was the capital city of several great powers through history). It may not be very sporting but I guess I'm just a man of simple pleasures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 10:37
|
|