EU4 - Development Diary - 10th of December 2018

[Agoria]

It costed them a lot but would they still be independant without english military support ? It's hard to tell.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

It costed them a lot but would they still be independant without english military support ? It's hard to tell.

Well, there were only two wars where British military support made a significant difference.
The 7 years war and the Napoleonic wars.
However the only reason why Portugual was dragged into these wars was precisely because Brittain was in the war and Portugal refused to betray Brittain. So in a way it was Brittain's fault Portugal got in those conflicts in the first place.

One could argue Portugal would be invaded either way, but that is in the realm of speculation and thus there is no clear answer.

 

[Agoria]

For the battle of Aljubarrota, the Portuguese used the English model and had english archers with longbows, which I think made a deadly difference.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

For the battle of Aljubarrota, the Portuguese used the English model and had english archers with longbows, which I think made a deadly difference.

There were 100 English Bowmen in a 6600 strong Portuguese Army, thats 1.5% of the total army.
In comparison Castille had 2000 French Heavy Knights helping the Castillian 31k strong army.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't the 100 Longbowmen that made the difference.

Also saying that the Portuguese used the English model is... debatable.
Sure there were some similarities with some earlier battles of the 100 years war, like Crecy, where a smaller army picked a strategic location, reinforced it with traps and other obstacles and baited the larger Cavalry-based enemy army into a killing field, but the English army composition was especially keen on longbowmen, and most of the damage was done in range before the melee started.
The Portuguese on the other hand never had large numbers of archers compared to infanty and although they did use traps and strategic terrain deployment, they would usually wait until the enemy charged and most of the fighting and killing would be done in melee. And i not sure if the usage of terrain and traps was adopted from the English, maybe it was, but the Celtic ancestors of the Portuguese already employed such tactics before against the Romans, so i would argue it has always been the "Portuguese" way of fighting disadvantageous pitched battles.

 

[Franciscus123]

There were 100 English Bowmen in a 6600 strong Portuguese Army, thats 1.5% of the total army.
In comparison Castille had 2000 French Heavy Knights helping the Castillian 31k army.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't the 100 Longbowmen that made the difference.

Also saying that the Portuguese used the English model is debatable.
Sure there were some similarities with some battles of the 100 years war, like Crecy, where a smaller army picked a strategic location and baited the larger Cavalry-based enemy army into a killing field, but the English army composition was especially keen on longbowmen, and most of the damage was done in range before the melee started.
The Portuguese on the other hand never had large numbers of archers and although they did use traps and strategic terrain deployment, they would wait until the enemy charged and engage in melee. And i not sure if the usage of terrain and traps was learn from the English, think Celtic ancestors of the Portuguese already employed such tactics against the Romans a long time ago.

It could be argued it did more harm than good at some points true, however it was always a detriment. I think the net value of the alliance is still positive though. Also a lot of trade between both countries (Treaty of Methuen for example, which made sense at the time as the Portuguese needed the investment).

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

It could be argued it did more harm than good at some points true, however it was always a detriment. I think the net value of the alliance is still positive though. Also a lot of trade between both countries (Treaty of Methuen for example, which made sense at the time as the Portuguese needed the investment).

It made sense at the time, and one could say it had some diplomatic advantages.
But it was detrimental to the Portuguese economy in the long run.
Well I guess its quite fitting, since we are discussing Portugal's diplomatic prowess, not economic.

I'm not saying the total net value of the alliance was negative, and Portugal was better alone. I'm just saying maybe it wasn't the best choice of ally (which again, could be argued Portugal didn't really had much to choose from, so it was either England or nothing).

 

[Golladan]

I don't understand how these two statements work together. The first one seems to say that if Portugal colonises, say, Peru, then Peru will get Brazilian culture (which doesn't make much sense), but the second statement appears to say it retains Portuguese culture? Is Brazilian culture restricted just to the Brazil Colonial Region or is it all of South America? And does it require being a Portuguese colony, so can Brazilian emerge if the Netherlands colonise Brazil?

Forming Brazil will change your culture to brazilian if you are in the iberian culture group.
Forming California or Texas will change your culture to american if you are in the british culture group, or mexican if you are in the iberian one.
Forming La Plata will change your culture to brazilian if you were portuguese.
Forming Mexico will change your culture to mexican if you are iberian.
Forming UPCA will change your culture to mexican if you are iberian.
Forming USA will change your culture to american if you are british.


Colonial nations will now take the culture of the majority culture within their borders, that is also present in the overlord's home continent. So it's possible to have Netherlands get a portugese Brazil colonial nation if they expel minorities.

 

[Franciscus123]

It made sense at the time, and one could say it had some diplomatic advantages.
But it was detrimental to the Portuguese economy in the long run.
Well I guess its quite fitting, since we are discussing Portugal's diplomatic prowess, not economic.

I'm not saying the total net value of the alliance was negative, and Portugal was better alone. I'm just saying maybe it wasn't the best choice of ally (which again, could be argued Portugal didn't really had much to choose from, so it was either England or nothing).

Exactly, it was either that or stand alone. Still, I think at Aljubarrota the company of longbowmen could have made all the difference as well, they were known to be a very powerful asset. I think given the Castillians were mostly pinned by the traps and the Portuguese formation/infantry, the longbows could have gotten some good shots off and inflicted a lot of damage. Did it completely decide the fate of the battle? Don't think we will ever be able to tell for sure of course.

 

[FreeSoc]

Pretty much all of our dev diaries have been smack full of content

is this some sort of botched attempt at a joke or does the dev team genuinely believe this?

 

[Franciscus123]

is this some sort of botched attempt at a joke or does the dev team genuinely believe this?

I think sadly they do.

 

[Agoria]

England would have interfered in Iberia anyway.
Iberian countries would seek good relations with France, so England would have allied the one that is not France's friend anyway.
But with no England as an ally, Portugal would have had a different diplomacy with Aragon, so we can't be sure that Aragon would have been closer to Castile than Portugal anyway.
Everything is depending on who France would have been the friend of, so we can't tell what Portugal would have looked like without the anglo/portuguese alliance.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Exactly, it was either that or stand alone. Still, I think at Aljubarrota the company of longbowmen could have made all the difference as well, they were known to be a very powerful asset. I think given the Castillians were mostly pinned by the traps and the Portuguese formation/infantry, the longbows could have gotten some good shots off and inflicted a lot of damage. Did it completely decide the fate of the battle? Don't think we will ever be able to tell for sure of course.

Are you telling me 100 English Longbowmen were decisive because they were the ranged element which capitalised on the trap factor?
It would be a good argument, if not for the 800 other Portuguese crossbowmen.

Or are you going to tell me 100 English Longbowmen (on the same conditions) were more effective than 800 Portuguese Crossbowmen? I'm sure they were elite bowmen but to singlehandedly outperform 8 crossbowmen seems like a bias straight out of Hollywood.

 

[Lusitania]

Are you telling me 100 English Longbowmen were decisive because they were the ranged element which capitalised on the trap factor?
It would be a good argument, if not for the 800 other Portuguese crossbowmen.

Or are you going to tell me 100 English Longbowmen (on the same conditions) were more effective than 800 Portuguese Crossbowmen? I'm sure they were elite bowmen but to singlehandedly outperform 8 crossbowmen seems like a bias straight out of Hollywood.

It's way more likely that the advisory aspect of the English presence was more important, since at the time they were great at anti-cavalry tactics thanks to wars against the French, and the Battle of Aljubarrota shined partially in how Nuno Alvares Pereira used terrain and cavalry trapping to take down the blunt of Castille's French allies.

That being said, it's likely 100 Longbowmen took down a few enemies directly, too, but nowhere as near as the Portuguese themselves.

 

[Franciscus123]

Yes, the advisory effect would have been great as well, and could've made all the difference, again we will never know - however the disposition of the Portuguese army was strikingly similar to other battles fought and won by the English at the time. I did not mention the range of the longbows. The penetration power of a good longbowman was as high as that of a crossbow - it could also pull off more shots. You have a lot of instances during the 100 years war when a small company of longbows made all the difference against a french mounted force, it is not something out of Hollywood whatsoever. And you also have to factor in experience and veterancy of the longbows vs that of crossbowmen themselves. But of course the sheer mass of crossbows makes the argument a waste of time. Again, it probably made a lot of difference, probably not as much an impact as 800 crossbows at short range, of course, and yet again, we will never know. The point was, it was still a good help at a time where english longbowmen where needed and much sought after in other theatres of the 100 years war.

 

[Messiah15]

Okay so I played as Portugal with the new dlc and the English alliance is as useless as ever. Often its Burgundy moving all across France and Spain and starting to sieging all provinces. The alliance just gets you in to wars you cant win. You can just improve opinion with England and when you succeded with the mission just cancel the alliance with England. Also Granada has a core provine in Ceuta. When Spain got a Granadian rebellion they went over the sea and start sieging my Portugal Ceuta with a 29k rebel army. I mean WTF.

I do like the provinces changes on the map. Religious orders are ok but maybe not something that i would buy for 9.99 Euros. I like Portugals new fleet policy.
The rest of the changes i have not been able to try yet.

 

[Franciscus123]

Okay so I played as Portugal with the new dlc and the English alliance is as useless as ever. Often its Burgundy moving all across France and Spain and starting to sieging all provinces. The alliance just gets you in to wars you cant win. You can just improve opinion with England and when you succeded with the mission just cancel the alliance with England. Also Granada has a core provine in Ceuta. When Spain got a Granadian rebellion they went over the sea and start sieging my Portugal Ceuta with a 29k rebel army. I mean WTF.

I do like the provinces changes on the map. Religious orders are ok but maybe not something that i would buy for 9.99 Euros. I like Portugals new fleet policy.
The rest of the changes i have not been able to try yet.

Sounds fun. In a sadistic, twisted way.

 

[Agoria]

Happy to have started an interesting debate
Bandua_of_Gallaecia, are you sure you know efficient longbowmen were ? Because I'm french and I can assure you that they were absolutely deadly.
Also, note that I told about "the English model" it's not about longbowmen only but also configuring the army the best and most efficient way against these ennemies.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Yes, the advisory effect would have been great as well, and could've made all the difference

The Portuguese were fighting their fourth war against Castille in the XIV century. And D.Nuno had already won impressive victories against Castille before English interfered in the war.
So its not like the Portuguese needed to be taught how to fight Castille.

You have a lot of instances during the 100 years war when a small company of longbows made all the difference against a french mounted force,

I'm not arguing against Longbowmen or small companies punching way above their size due to tactical superiority.
100 men could obviously defeat 800 men given the right circumstances.
However when comparing the 100 English Longbowmen to the 800 Portuguese Crossbowmen you have to take in consideration they were fighting in the same side against the same enemy in the same place commanded by the same commander.
If D.Nuno could win this battle with clever use of 100 longbowmen then he could definitely win the same battle by having 800 crossbowmen instead.

And you also have to factor in experience and veterancy of the longbows vs that of crossbowmen themselves.

The best part about crossbowmen is that unlike Archers, they don't need a lot of training to be good. Give a man a bow and it will take months maybe years before he learns how to shoot well. Give a man a crossbow and in 20 minutes he will be able to take down a knight.

 

[Jorlem]

Are mexican and brazilian part of the Iberian culture group, same way as american is british?

Yes!

Have there been any changes recently to culture conversion or the AI's willingness to do so? I ask because I have seen the AI for the Thirteen Colonies culture converting provinces away from American culture as soon as it appears.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Happy to have started an interesting debate
Bandua_of_Gallaecia, are you sure you know efficient longbowmen were ? Because I'm french and I can assure you that they were absolutely deadly.
Also, note that I told about "the English model" it's not about longbowmen only but also configuring the army the best and most efficient way against these ennemies.

I know they are efficient but for example, in the battle of Crecy there were 5000 longbowmen, 33% of the English Army. Of course they were deadly.
In Agincourt there were 7500, 80% of the English Army. They were definitely deadly.
In Aljubarrota there were 100, 1.5% of the Portuguese army, sure they helped, but the difference in numbers is staggering to be significant.