|
  This is cool
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
i wonder if the tricky to pull off but definitively possible early pu over france will complete the missions
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Can they do this for other things too, like revolting provinces or provinces involved in decisions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:revolting provinces Wouldn't that just be a worse unrest map mode, or am I misunderstanding you? Speaking of map modes, someone upthread mentioned there might be an edict map mode. There isn't, but it would be a helpful thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
(There is)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
there definitely is, it's in my junk drawer of a map mode hotkey i cycle through
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
The map modes really need a 'just show a huge popout with every button as an option' toggle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Wouldn't that just be a worse unrest map mode, or am I misunderstanding you? The unrest map mode is basically useless. It only colors provinces by local unrest, and you have to mouse over them to see what rebels they have. I want to be able to select the rebel type from the stability and expansion window and have it highlight the provinces that they're in. Like so: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
everything about ming is bad and everyone knows it but boy howdy do i really hate fellow tributaries i'm at war with shatter retreating all the way across china
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
oddium posted:everything about ming is bad and everyone knows it but boy howdy do i really hate fellow tributaries i'm at war with shatter retreating all the way across china Ottomans just lost a battle in Vienna? Lets retreat all the way to Cairo! Nevermind that there are literally dozens of Ottoman provinces in between!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
Supply Depots in your provinces should act as a priority retreat over other locations, closest first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Roadie posted:The map modes really need a 'just show a huge popout with every button as an option' toggle. There used to be a mod for this, and I loved it, but when Paradox added more buttons it apparently became impossible to update.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Yeah shatter retreating in general is pretty ridiculously designed. Oh, a Russian army just lost a battle in Tehran to the Ottomans? Lets have it retreat through the entirety of the Ottoman Empire to Vienna, capital of Russia's war ally Austria. I just wish that something would happen if they try to retreat through an enemy army. It's kind of ridiculous that your forces just kind of shrug and ignore the huge defeated enemy army just walking right past them to safety.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Way back when the game first came out, the tooltip for enemy armies would show you exactly where they were retreating to, so you could just move another army there and stack wipe them easily. They fixed that pretty quickly. On the other hand, I think I remember that shattered retreats used to be even more ridiculous, like it would just pick a random province you control with no weighting or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Shattered retreats really need a distance limit based on miltech or whatever, and if the army can't reach a friendly province within that distance it just stops at the limit and takes extra damage. Have it be something high enough to generally not bother players (but add some extra caution to other side of the world jaunts) but stop the dumb "retreat to the other side of Eurasia" stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Shattered retreats really need a distance limit based on miltech or whatever, and if the army can't reach a friendly province within that distance it just stops at the limit and takes extra damage. Have it be something high enough to generally not bother players (but add some extra caution to other side of the world jaunts) but stop the dumb "retreat to the other side of Eurasia" stuff. I think it's already limited to 10 provinces, but I might be remembering wrong. If there's no valid province, it jut picks a neighboring province, and they get easily stackwiped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Wiki saysquote:If an army loses a battle while having low enough morale to be disorganized, they will be forced to retreat to a controlled province (owned, allied in war, or occupied by player or allies). This province can be very far away from where the battle took place. They will prioritize to retreat to a province with high development, a fort, and no adjacent enemies. While retreating, it cannot be engaged in combat or controlled until it reaches the safer province (or in extreme circumstances if it recovers to 100% morale before reaching the destination). The army also moves slightly faster, and will recover morale at a normal rate during the retreat. If there are no available controlled provinces to retreat to within a large range, the army will shattered retreat to one province away. Doesn’t say how large the range is though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
i had a broken army decide to hoof it from kamchatka to western mongolia. 4615 km, np. fighting in the far east tends to get silly
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
If I had my way I'd make attrition insanely brutal. Like 10% minimum if you're in a fully looted province with no adjacent control. You should have to depend on looting to survive outside friendly territory. Armies should also lose maximum morale proportional to attrition loss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:If I had my way I'd make attrition insanely brutal. Like 10% minimum if you're in a fully looted province with no adjacent control. You should have to depend on looting to survive outside friendly territory. Armies should also lose maximum morale proportional to attrition loss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
I too don’t enjoy wars and would like to see them discouraged as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:If I had my way I'd make attrition insanely brutal. Like 10% minimum if you're in a fully looted province with no adjacent control. You should have to depend on looting to survive outside friendly territory. Armies should also lose maximum morale proportional to attrition loss. I agree, but they should also allow you to prepare. You can spend some mana to put an army on war footing before the campaign so you take less attrition for a few months and get bonus morale. Increasing attrition would be a massive buff to smaller more well developed countries like the Dutch. Right now they could never hold off a determined France, but if they flooded the provinces and the French army was taking 20% attrition then they'd be exactly as annoying to deal with as they were historically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:I too don’t enjoy wars and would like to see them discouraged as much as possible. It's the eternal map-gamer struggle between simulation and simplicity. You need a bit of both, but how much of which is a matter to fight to the death over
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
You can already raise attrition in your provinces with scorch earth. I have no idea if it does anything worth the trouble though. The last time I remember using it was as Muscovy trying to hide from the Golden Horde rush in EU3.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
skasion posted:You can already raise attrition in your provinces with scorch earth. I have no idea if it does anything worth the trouble though. The last time I remember using it was as Muscovy trying to hide from the Golden Horde rush in EU3. It's more useful to increase enemy travel time, so you can slip small stacks out of danger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
skasion posted:You can already raise attrition in your provinces with scorch earth. I have no idea if it does anything worth the trouble though. The last time I remember using it was as Muscovy trying to hide from the Golden Horde rush in EU3. It worked a lot better in EU3, now it's hardly worth pissing away the sword mana. Which is kind of unfortunate because scorching and running was a legitimate and effective way to fight back against someone larger than you but nope, can't have that. Can't have any aspect of warfare or combat that isn't decided solely by the number of regiments in your stack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:I too don’t enjoy wars and would like to see them discouraged as much as possible. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:If I had my way I'd make attrition insanely brutal. Like 10% minimum if you're in a fully looted province with no adjacent control. You should have to depend on looting to survive outside friendly territory. Armies should also lose maximum morale proportional to attrition loss. I would love this but apparently the AI is utterly, utterly terrible at dealing with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 02:00
|
|
|
Why not give a massive buff to scorch earth but otherwise leave attrition alone? That way fighting off a larger foe can be worth it, the AI being poo poo at handling it won’t matter since it’s in certain provinces, and (if the AI can smartly do it too) the player would have to deal with a wrinkle in occupations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
 Thanks for telling me that each of my split-off mini-stacks that I split off to carpet siege my enemy's land all got stackwiped by the Particularist revolt, without telling me that they revolted edit: Also, it would be nice if countries with the Defender Of The Faith mantle got an icon in their diplomatic overview just like they do if they are guaranteeing someone. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
A question about trade. The advice given for a start around the Indian Ocean is to fully control the Zanzibar node and rush to colonize the (coastal) provinces of the Cape node. This prevents the Europeans from pulling trade over the cape. This seems to work, but does it work for any full control? I'm playing as Hungary and plan to fully own the Constantinople as well as the Ragusa node (only outgoing for Constantinople). If I collect in Constantinople then, does it prevent leakage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 08:37
|
|
|
Yeah, basically any node with only one outgoing node can be turned into an "effective end node." Persia is also not a bad one, you can completely dominate it if you also control Aleppo (which incidentally ALSO helps you funnel everything from Basra into the Persia node.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:A question about trade. The advice given for a start around the Indian Ocean is to fully control the Zanzibar node and rush to colonize the (coastal) provinces of the Cape node. This prevents the Europeans from pulling trade over the cape. Here is a look at the Constantinople node in 1690 where I own all but two provinces in the Ragusa node (  Austria always being allied to half the world): 13ish is getting out from merchant power and whatever, but 160ish value is staying kaput.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 13:32
|
|
|
now here's something I haven't seen ever (year is 1450) (it didn't help) double nine fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:It's the eternal map-gamer struggle between simulation and simplicity. You need a bit of both, but how much of which is a matter to fight to the death over Totally. As it is, the general shape of things is that most of the time provinces can handle about half combat width of occupation, so towards the mid to later game, I am constantly micromanaging pairs of stacks who stand threateningly near one another which is enough to hold off similarly giant armies of AI doom most of the time, so long as I am constantly vigilant to run them together if the other side gets close. Between that and the sieges to slowly take spacial control, I am losing more of my manpower to attrition than to combat. I feel like losing even more manpower to attrition would just make for shorter wars with even less combat and encourage even more merc infantry which isn't that realistic for 1700s+ armies which were pretty professionalized historically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:Totally. As it is, the general shape of things is that most of the time provinces can handle about half combat width of occupation, so towards the mid to later game, I am constantly micromanaging pairs of stacks who stand threateningly near one another which is enough to hold off similarly giant armies of AI doom most of the time, so long as I am constantly vigilant to run them together if the other side gets close. Between that and the sieges to slowly take spacial control, I am losing more of my manpower to attrition than to combat. Re: automating armies: Players have access to Naval missions like "Seek out enemy fleets" and "Blockade this area". I do not believe that the player should have to micromanage every little aspect of a military campaign down to the "how many men should stand in each province" level; there should be something similar to the Naval missions. The land regions are already broken down into areas like "Balkans", "Asia Minor", "Arabia", "Egypt", ect and the ability to set an army on a mission to "Siege and occupy a region", "Attack enemy armies that enter this region", "Occupy land but do not siege forts", and so on, along with checkboxes for "ignore attrition" or "avoid attrition" along with "avoid enemy armies" would be a DLC that I would happily pay for. The AI can already do all of these things - I see the AI break armies out into 8 smaller stacks to carpet siege an un-forted area or split a stack to avoid attrition when sieging a fort, and we all sure as poo poo know that the AI is loving fantastic at avoiding combat. Re: armies having a range: It should be logistically and realistically impossible to project force across the globe like players and AI alike can currently do. Its that simple. Paradox devs are some creative fellas so I trust they could come up with a system to increase attrition the farther you get from an army's "home/base state" or if you cannot trace a line from the army through friendly territory back to <something>. Instead we get Ottomans marching to Paris in 1460 because France took DotF OR Bremen marching their entire army to Circassia because of Trade League or Alliance bullshit OR an AI Venice getting Military Access through seven countries just to march a two stack to the rear end end of the Russia out of LoS just to occupy a few provinces not defended by a fort. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Shorter wars with less combat, especially in the early game, would be a good thing. My problem right now is that every war in this game is total war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
That's true. Most of the time, once I have gotten to the point that I can demand my actual war objective, the other side is beaten enough that a little more siege time will get me to 99% W/S and many more rewards and objectives. I feel like a big part of that is the premium that enemy allies put on holding their capital.And if you can take the capital you can probably take everything. So over and over I end up sieging down and occupying an entire country over, like, a gold mine and a port in Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Anyone knows if the coming updates, or more long term plans, are looking into streamlining the redundant systems implemented over time in the game?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
Yes, and the answer is no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 19:58
|
|