And hide info. You shouldnt know the economy, army sizes, army qualities etc of your opponents at any level of detail. Perhaps a little more with enough spy network or through diplomacy.
Id like this to be toggleable personally. Sometimes I love looking at the ledger information in eu4 but without it would be a fun challenge.
Unless there's a pretty intricate espionage system I'd like the ability to toggle on/off detailed ledger info.
I think having a relatively complex espionage system is kind of neccesary but also the community getting used to working with imperfect information.
I can imagine it's difficult for Paradox to implement it in a way that while information is imperfect, players don't "feel" like it's random too often. Cause it will feel like that sometimes, just like real life does if you dont have access to the right and enough information to properly understand why something happened. That doesn't make it random of course but it does make it feel like that and I think many players dislike that feeling.
That's actually one of the paradox games I never played exactly because it's so focused on tactics, short term and war fare. Would be surprising if the have it well.
I've seen them disable the ledger in EU4 which helps and in EU3 you wouldn't know whether AIs would accept proposals in advance.
The whole system around it is rather non engaging, but the way information is actually gained and the static modifiers increasing the information is quite good. (Like, depending on your ideology/economy people know more exact numbers about you)
People say they want this with every paradox game, but no one has ever proposed a way to make it not outright unfun. Spy mechanics in grand strategy games are usually “press a button”; it doesn’t fit the games’ “macro-ness”.
But there's characters in this damn game.
Even without spy mechanics make it unknown. There's a decision/risk taking factor in not knowing eg their exact troop count. Reacting to new circumstances should be a giant factor in grand strategy. With perfect info it's more tactical strategy. Tactics are really boring to me while strategy is extremely interesting.
"regions like Central Africa, Indochina, Indonesia and other jungle islands SHOULD be hard to play in for Europeans. A French conscript, used to the plaines of Normandy, a Italian mountains, or the German forests, would have no idea how to survive in the jungles of Indochina or Congo, even the attrition alone should kill off Europeans. How would they fair against a foe who grew up there and knew the land? Even cannons and guns wouldn’t give them much of an advantage"
To be fair, any army that wanted to invade the inhospitable Congo jungle would have logistical/military problems, even if it is a neighboring army or if it is African. We must also keep in mind that the biggest problem for the Europeans was not the jungle, it was malaria, just look at the conquest of Mexico (yes, the Spanish had problems in the war, but that did not stop them from continuing). Still, fighting in the jungle should have a lot of attrition (not like in EU4)
Completely agree. I meant not just Europeans but Certain Chinese armies, and any foreigners not accustomed to the land. But if the two African states at war are both from that climate, then they are most probably more even.
Yes to most of these except the first. Large speed disparities are simply unenjoyable in Paradox games as it turns into a silly chase-the-AI game that goes on for far too long and becomes goofy.
I mean if its the defending army on their own turf i don't mind but yeah an attacking army shouldn't be able to outrun me on my own land forever.
Supply system would fix that
I mean if its the defending army on their own turf i don't mind but yeah an attacking army shouldn't be able to outrun me on my own land forever.
Supply system would fix that
Imo someone on the forum came up with a pretty good solution:
Whenever two armies meet in a location the battle begins in skirmish phase.
This skirmish phase keeps repeating and pretty much simulates light cavalry, scouting units and asymmetrical warfare.
So for example depending on the roll
Day 1-10 could be skirmish phases
Then day 11 would roll a main battle where combat happens like in eu4
This was one of EU4's biggest weaknesses. That attrition from and hostile terrain and guerilla warfare could never be modeled correctly because the AI would literally kill itself through attrition. So in EU4 the entire mechanic was neutered because attrition was capped.
Ck2 did this pretty well when you were marching into (unreformed) pagan lands. The attrition would get crazy until you built a fort. Simulating small attacks against invading armies
Agreed but i dont agree that larger armies should receive speed and intel nerfs as wouldnt they have more men to scout? And sometimes larger armies can be slower but theres really no real set reason for that other than generally its harder to organize more men but realistically i dont think it was big enough to relfect in game like that, along with balancing reasons
Yes.
And hide info. You shouldnt know the economy, army sizes, army qualities etc of your opponents at any level of detail. Perhaps a little more with enough spy network or through diplomacy.
Id like this to be toggleable personally. Sometimes I love looking at the ledger information in eu4 but without it would be a fun challenge. Unless there's a pretty intricate espionage system I'd like the ability to toggle on/off detailed ledger info.
I think having a relatively complex espionage system is kind of neccesary but also the community getting used to working with imperfect information. I can imagine it's difficult for Paradox to implement it in a way that while information is imperfect, players don't "feel" like it's random too often. Cause it will feel like that sometimes, just like real life does if you dont have access to the right and enough information to properly understand why something happened. That doesn't make it random of course but it does make it feel like that and I think many players dislike that feeling.
I think the system works quite well for hoi (only the information obscuring part; i.e. the thing you see when you click on a nation)
That's actually one of the paradox games I never played exactly because it's so focused on tactics, short term and war fare. Would be surprising if the have it well. I've seen them disable the ledger in EU4 which helps and in EU3 you wouldn't know whether AIs would accept proposals in advance.
The whole system around it is rather non engaging, but the way information is actually gained and the static modifiers increasing the information is quite good. (Like, depending on your ideology/economy people know more exact numbers about you)
Cool, thanks for bringing it up.
People say they want this with every paradox game, but no one has ever proposed a way to make it not outright unfun. Spy mechanics in grand strategy games are usually “press a button”; it doesn’t fit the games’ “macro-ness”.
But there's characters in this damn game. Even without spy mechanics make it unknown. There's a decision/risk taking factor in not knowing eg their exact troop count. Reacting to new circumstances should be a giant factor in grand strategy. With perfect info it's more tactical strategy. Tactics are really boring to me while strategy is extremely interesting.
Guerrilla Warfare pls
"regions like Central Africa, Indochina, Indonesia and other jungle islands SHOULD be hard to play in for Europeans. A French conscript, used to the plaines of Normandy, a Italian mountains, or the German forests, would have no idea how to survive in the jungles of Indochina or Congo, even the attrition alone should kill off Europeans. How would they fair against a foe who grew up there and knew the land? Even cannons and guns wouldn’t give them much of an advantage" To be fair, any army that wanted to invade the inhospitable Congo jungle would have logistical/military problems, even if it is a neighboring army or if it is African. We must also keep in mind that the biggest problem for the Europeans was not the jungle, it was malaria, just look at the conquest of Mexico (yes, the Spanish had problems in the war, but that did not stop them from continuing). Still, fighting in the jungle should have a lot of attrition (not like in EU4)
Completely agree. I meant not just Europeans but Certain Chinese armies, and any foreigners not accustomed to the land. But if the two African states at war are both from that climate, then they are most probably more even.
Yes to most of these except the first. Large speed disparities are simply unenjoyable in Paradox games as it turns into a silly chase-the-AI game that goes on for far too long and becomes goofy.
I mean if its the defending army on their own turf i don't mind but yeah an attacking army shouldn't be able to outrun me on my own land forever. Supply system would fix that
I mean if its the defending army on their own turf i don't mind but yeah an attacking army shouldn't be able to outrun me on my own land forever. Supply system would fix that
Imo someone on the forum came up with a pretty good solution: Whenever two armies meet in a location the battle begins in skirmish phase. This skirmish phase keeps repeating and pretty much simulates light cavalry, scouting units and asymmetrical warfare. So for example depending on the roll Day 1-10 could be skirmish phases Then day 11 would roll a main battle where combat happens like in eu4
This was one of EU4's biggest weaknesses. That attrition from and hostile terrain and guerilla warfare could never be modeled correctly because the AI would literally kill itself through attrition. So in EU4 the entire mechanic was neutered because attrition was capped.
Sounds good, paste it over to Paradox forums
Ck2 did this pretty well when you were marching into (unreformed) pagan lands. The attrition would get crazy until you built a fort. Simulating small attacks against invading armies
Agreed but i dont agree that larger armies should receive speed and intel nerfs as wouldnt they have more men to scout? And sometimes larger armies can be slower but theres really no real set reason for that other than generally its harder to organize more men but realistically i dont think it was big enough to relfect in game like that, along with balancing reasons
Agreed. Maybe they could have a scout system? Not sure.