Europa Universalis IV

[Malakal]

Yes but if you read what ideas in idea group actually represent you can easily have both quality and quantity. Lets take an idea from quantity "the young can serve". It increases manpower due to lowering of the age of potential recruits. Cant young recruits be excellent soldiers? Of course they can as child soldiers show us.

 

[baturinsky]

Untrue, every single one of my militaristic imperialist states with four or more Military Idea Groups has held the edge in Military tech.

Even those with 50%+ penalties to research?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I agree ideas could use better balance, in big part due to there being much less synergy between Diplomatic (aside from Naval ideas, but only island nations have real use for Naval ideas) and Administrative ideas. Everything in military adds up to one thing, Admin and Diplo just use scattershot buffs.

Untrue, every single one of my militaristic imperialist states with four or more Military Idea Groups has held the edge in Military tech.

Even those with 50%+ penalties to research?

Where on earth are you going to get +50% in penalties without either overteching or by not being white?

 

[Grinolf]

Right now with the derpy national idea groups you can be a living contradiction with Quantity and Qualityю

You could try to tell to Napoleon, who created the most quality army of his time and then tried to zerg rush Russia with 600k soldiers, that it is living contradiction to create both quality and quantity army. Well there may be a problems with telling him that or anything else. But it isn't a point.
The only sliders, that had any sense, was religious, centralization and serfdom. And I really want to know, where Paradox found free trade in 15 century.
Also you still had a choice. But that choice isn't between quality or quantity, but between quality quantity and any other idea group.

Now, the problem I have with making it easier to hire compensating advisors when your monarch is a drooling imbecile it'd work against the whole mechanic by making a poor quality ruler.

You don't understand the point. There should be cost and consequences for it. But lack the ability to interact with your monarch is bad both from historical and gameplay perspectives.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Now, the problem I have with making it easier to hire compensating advisors when your monarch is a drooling imbecile it'd work against the whole mechanic by making a poor quality ruler.

You don't understand the point. There should be cost and consequences for it. But lack the ability to interact with your monarch is bad both from historical and gameplay perspectives.

I see your point. But in my opinion, EU4's gameplay is too abstract (in present form at least, expansions to the game's functions with expansions might change that) for increased monarch/advisor interactivity. It'd need a touch of CK2 to its underlying mechanics.

 

[Jugashvili]

You could try to tell to Napoleon, who created the most quality army of his time and then tried to zerg rush Russia with 600k soldiers, that it is living contradiction to create both quality and quantity army. Well there may be a problems with telling him that or anything else. But it isn't a point.

I channelled Napoleon's ghost and told him about it, we had a good laugh. Mainly because it isn't true. In fact, Napoleon's armies are a perfect example of quality vs. quantity. The 600,000+ strong Grande Armee that crossed the Niemen in 1812, as a whole, was absolute crap compared to his earlier armies. Lacklustre performance at Borodino, near-disaster at Berezina, and the battle of Leipzig really highlighted the weaknesses of that huge, bloated, dysfunctional and incoherent mess of a multinational force, especially as Reynier's VII Corps Saxons defected to the Coalition during the battle, as did the Württenberg cavalry. With such reluctant and unreliable allied forces, how can you claim that this was a "quality" army?

When did Napoleon have the best-quality army of his time? Easy. When it was small. 1805 -- the Ulm campaign. Capturing 60.000 Austrians at the loss of only 2.000 of his men. The Austerlitz campaign. Now that's quality. Outnumbered 2:1 by the Austians and the Russians, he out-marched, out-manoeuvered and out-fought them at every turn. 1806 -- the battles of Jena and Auerstedt. Auerstedt was particularly brilliant -- Davout, with a single corps, defeated the Prussian main army. Motivated, well-led and effective -- now that was a quality force.

 

[oscar]

Napoleon was more the Offensive idea than anything else. Forced march especially. I'd say:

Defensive + Quality: Britain
Offensive + Quality: France
Defensive + Quantity: Russia
Quality + Quantity: Prussia

 

[Grinolf]

I channelled Napoleon's ghost and told him about it, we had a good laugh. Mainly because it isn't true. In fact, Napoleon's armies are a perfect example of quality vs. quantity. The 600,000+ strong Grande Armee that crossed the Niemen in 1812, as a whole, was absolute crap compared to his earlier armies. Lacklustre performance at Borodino, near-disaster at Berezina, and the battle of Leipzig really highlighted the weaknesses of that huge, bloated, dysfunctional and incoherent mess of a multinational force, especially as Reynier's VII Corps Saxons defected to the Coalition during the battle, as did the Württenberg cavalry. With such reluctant and unreliable allied forces, how can you claim that this was a "quality" army?

Even if you eliminate all allies troops from "quality" part, french troops only still greatly outnumbered regular russian army, despite the fact, that Russia had a larger population.
And where you get that 2:1 number for third calition war? Both Russia and Austria army had a smaller armies than French one, and only together outnumbered Napoleon. If it isn't "quantity", then I don't know what quantity means.

 

[Jugashvili]

Even if you eliminate all allies troops from "quality" part, french troops only still greatly outnumbered regular russian army, despite the fact, that Russia had a larger population.

No. Napoleon had about 270,000 French troops in Russia; the Russian OOB had a first line of defence (175,000 Russians + 15,000 Cossack troops) that could be reinforced by a second line (130,000 Russians and about 8,000 Cossacks), so the the amount of regulars they could draw from was greater. To this we must add about 160,000 militia troops they could draw from, for a grand total of about 500,000.

And where you get that 2:1 number for third calition war? Both Russia and Austria army had a smaller armies than French one, and only together outnumbered Napoleon. If it isn't "quantity", then I don't know what quantity means.

Because at Austerlitz, the Russians and Austrians did not only have the strength that actually participated in the battle (85,000), they also were expecting more forces underway from Merveldt (a reserve brigade of 4,000 Austrians) and Essen (12,000 Russians from Benningsen's army) that would have brought their strength to over 100,000. It was only Napoleon's decisiveness that prevented them from arriving on time. And keep in mind that they could still muster these forces after the Ulm campaign, which had severely drained the Austrian forces by pretty much destroying general Mack's army.

 

[Grinolf]

No. Napoleon had about 270,000 French troops in Russia; the Russian OOB had a first line of defence (175,000 Russians + 15,000 Cossack troops) that could be reinforced by a second line (130,000 Russians and about 8,000 Cossacks), so the the amount of regulars they could draw from was greater. To this we must add about 160,000 militia troops they could draw from, for a grand total of about 500,000.

1. You compared all, that Russia could amass against Napoleon, against what Napoleon actually bought into Russia. And he brought hardly half of what he had, since at that point of time he already overextended his own empire. With all that troops placed all over Europe French army would greatly outnumber Russian one. And that with smaller population. So my point still stands.
2. Even after disasterous Russian campaign, Napoleon was able to replenish his losses. That army wasn't equal in quality to his previous one, due to limited time, but amount of his reserves was impressive.

Because at Austerlitz, the Russians and Austrians did not only have the strength that actually participated in the battle (85,000), they also were expecting more forces underway from Merveldt (a reserve brigade of 4,000 Austrians) and Essen (12,000 Russians from Benningsen's army) that would have brought their strength to over 100,000. It was only Napoleon's decisiveness that prevented them from arriving on time. And keep in mind that they could still muster these forces after the Ulm campaign, which had severely drained the Austrian forces by pretty much destroying general Mack's army.

Even with 100k troops Russian-Austrian side wouldn't outnumber French troops in two times. So I still don't know from where you take such numbers.
And there wasn't all Napoleon troops, that managed arrive in time also. So you again compare what Napoleon enemeies could have against what Napoleon actually had.

 

[Jugashvili]

1. You compared all, that Russia could amass against Napoleon, against what Napoleon actually bought into Russia. And he brought hardly half of what he had, since at that point of time he already overextended his own empire. With all that troops placed all over Europe French army would greatly outnumber Russian one. And that with smaller population. So my point still stands.

It is estimated that they brought most of those troops to bear, except for garrison troops that were manning fortresses, and they raised more soon afterwards. Keep in mind that the size of the Russian forces grew dramatically after the invasion. During their 1812 recruitment drive, they increased the recruitment rate from 0,8% to 4% and lowered the recruitment age.

2. Even after disasterous Russian campaign, Napoleon was able to replenish his losses. That army wasn't equal in quality to his previous one, due to limited time, but amount of his reserves was impressive.

Yes, but France had been one of the most demographically dynamic countries during the modern era. If anything, the casualties he suffered wrecked the country by leading it into a long and drawn-out population crisis.

Also, the 1813 recruits were nothing to shout about, and the 1814 Marie-Louises were really scraping the bottom of the barrel. The fact that he promoted entire regiments to Young Guard status doesn't mean they were actually quality troops, as their performance showed.

Even with 100k troops Russian-Austrian side wouldn't outnumber French troops in two times. So I still don't know from where you take such numbers.

Davout's III Corps 8,000 troops were far south, in Vienna, so Napoleon's 72,000, at the eve of the battle, were actually more like 64,000, and they only had 139 or so cannons to the enemy's 278. Why did Davout's III corps manage to force march from Vienna to Austerlitz (110 km) in 48 hours whereas the Russian and Austrian reinforcements were unable to? Again, quality.

 

[baturinsky]

I think "ideas", military and otherwise, were not something semi-permanent, but changed a lot depending on need and ruler/generals skill and whim. Suvorov was Offensive, Kutusov was Defensive, Napoleon was Quality before 1812 and Quantity (Quantity = "draft everyone", not "have big army") after.

 

[Malakal]

The point is France under Napoleon used both quality armies and had quantity of troops. So both idea sets. They are not exclusive. If you have time and resources you field great armies, if you dont you field what you have.

 

[oscar]

Or Prussia managing to have both a very large army for its population (quantity) -and- a well-trained and disciplined one (quality).

 

[Jugashvili]

I think "ideas", military and otherwise, were not something semi-permanent, but changed a lot depending on need and ruler/generals skill and whim. Suvorov was Offensive, Kutusov was Defensive, Napoleon was Quality before 1812 and Quantity (Quantity = "draft everyone", not "have big army") after.

I agree. I think this is also very nicely represented by military tradition in the EU series.

The point about the Prussian army is interesting, because it did have quality and quantity for a while, but it became decadent shortly afterwards. The Prussian army Napoleon faced in the 1806 campaign was a far cry from the army of Frederick the Great.

 

[RedScum]

Can't we just go back to discuss which turk is better and why?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Does anyone have any impressions or suggestions on my scenario?

 

[RedScum]

 

[Average Manatee]

Just having a large army doesn't = Quantity, retards. Quantity implies a focus on numbers over Quality. Having a focus on both Quantity and Quality should leave you with a focus on nothing at all.

 

[Malakal]

Just having a large army doesn't = Quantity, retards. Quantity implies a focus on numbers over Quality. Having a focus on both Quantity and Quality should leave you with a focus on nothing at all.

Have you perhaps considered that since your view is the minority here it is the "retarded" one? And you maybe dont have the monopoly to tell us what should we understand as quantity? For an average monkey you are a real dumbfuck.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Just having a large army doesn't = Quantity, retards. Quantity implies a focus on numbers over Quality. Having a focus on both Quantity and Quality should leave you with a focus on nothing at all.

Have you perhaps considered that since your view is the minority here it is the "retarded" one? And you maybe dont have the monopoly to tell us what should we understand as quantity? For an average monkey you are a real dumbfuck.

Manatees aren't monkeys tho. You're probably thinking of macaques, you silly potato.

Regardless, I fully agree that Manatee's viewpoint is unflatteringly said retarded. Quality vs Quantity only ever works in video games like that. In reality, creating a large real army was a challenge, but not one where you had to sacrifice quality. Beyond just the example of Napoleon's and Frederick's armies, you can look at the Wehrmacht, or the post-Barbarossa Red Army. EU4 does model the development of a military rather well in a way, since armies evolve gradually in it and ultimately do reflect certain doctrines through the combination of idea groups. As said, the real problem is not the military ideas, but the fact the other ideas don't have the same kind of synergy and pivotal effect (outside of the ones that also affect your military capacity through leader cap or maintenance reduction).

 

[Grinolf]

MEIOU and taxes would be released in five days. But I honestly don't know how they could balanced such many changes and optimised the perfomance of the game to playable state with such little time. And I don't think addition of new trade nodes will give anything to the game aside of new problems. But "wait and see", I guess.

 

[Malakal]

MEIOU and taxes would be released in five days. But I honestly don't know how they could balanced such many changes and optimised the perfomance of the game to playable state with such little time. And I don't think addition of new trade nodes will give anything to the game aside of new problems. But "wait and see", I guess.

They already said a few times it will run much slower than vanilla. Also neither MEIOU or DT were balanced before i any way so we may expect the same here. Still MEIOU map was gorgeous not to mention awesome interface.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

i've been trying a castille ironman: is the paesants revolt now scripted?

 

[Sranchammer]

MEIOU and taxes would be released in five days. But I honestly don't know how they could balanced such many changes and optimised the perfomance of the game to playable state with such little time. And I don't think addition of new trade nodes will give anything to the game aside of new problems. But "wait and see", I guess.

They already said a few times it will run much slower than vanilla. Also neither MEIOU or DT were balanced before i any way so we may expect the same here. Still MEIOU map was gorgeous not to mention awesome interface.

I don't think either mods really were about balancing/historicity , it just kinda became a thing.