EU4 - Development Diary - 8th of May 2018

[Aagney]

The British defeated the Marathas at the 2 Anglo-Maratha war despite the Marathas having over triple the forces. The Maratha also heavily outnumbered the British in the first war. In reality is was just not feasible to dispatch all of your country's forces to fight in some colonial war halfway across the globe in the way you routinely do in game. The Marathas wouldn't have any hope of resistance against the full British army. In order to make colonial wars harder there should be a way to simulate the need for forces in a countries homeland not ridiculous military buffs

Aren't you approaching history by PDX design than by actual history - that the British Royal Army need fight the succession war of Maratha in the 2nd Anglo-Maratha War.
There was never the British Royal Army that needed to be looked for the feasibility of dispatching of all the country's forces to fight in some colonial war halfway across the globe, it was The Honourable British East India Company who had an organised army double that of the British army during the time of 2nd Anglo-Maratha war.

Trade companies are not performing the way they should do, thats problem with the game design. Even if any power in India is at the same tech level, the European colonisers in capacity will always defeat the Indian army with their better pips - I have tested it multiple of times - if that means to answer harder colonial war problem. Further, the early tech spread in these regions particularly in India depends on Ottomans and Ming. Lately and particularly after MOH, Ming does not lags in tech as it used to thanks to multiple free MPs - and institutions spreads sooner in these region - as is a popular (and valid) complain these days.

Marathas were not jointly fighting the second Anglo-Maratha war, because of succession they were already divided into two. In October 1802, the combined armies of Peshwa Baji Rao II (Maratha Pune House) and Scindhias (Gwalior House) were defeated by Maratha House of Indore. Baji Rao fled to British protection, and in December the same year concluded a treaty with the British East India Company, ceding territory for the maintenance of a subsidiary force and agreeing to treaty with no other power. This act on the part of the Peshwa, their nominal overlord, horrified and disgusted the Maratha chieftains; in particular, the Scindhias of Gwalior and the Bhosale rulers of Nagpur and Berar contested the agreement. And that started the war. It was concluded when Indore too later entered the war compelling the British for a peace treaty. The Maratha forces had already by then lost the battle.

The thing is which Maratha are we talking about. (out of 5).

I am not asking that Marathas be made into Prussia. Its just that they did out-perform their Indian contemporaries with a fair margin and that it should be reflected in the game vis-a-vis other contemporary Indian tags.

 

[randomgamer71]

High attrition and low value, probably. Tibet is huge, politically decentralized. When the Qianglong emperor wanted to integrate the Jinchuan valley in eastern Kham, it become his most costly campaign



Generally this is something euiv can't represent (compare to ottomans sending down 50k armies through the Sahara desert)

Low value is not an obstacle either, there is no real reason to not conquer one, or a bunch of, 3 dev provinces, unlike in eu3 (where holding too many poor provinces could seriously hold you back technologically), or real life (where some land is just not worth conquering) actually a 3-dev province would be easier to get, generate less AE, cost less diplo points to pay, cheaper and faster to core. Some could even argue that conquer five 3-dev provinces is better than conquer one 15-dev one.

 

[Aagney]

In every battle of the Anglo-Maratha wars I was able to find in my quick wikipedia search, Marathas heavily outnumbered the British, sometimes even by an order of magnitude.

There is no doubt about the better generalship and discipline from the British side, but these numbers on wiki don't include the numbers of British Allies who too were Maratha from other houses. Both 1st & 2nd were succession wars where the British & Peshwa were together. And the third involved most of the armies of Bengal, Madras & Bombay Presidencies as it was an organised operation against exterminating the Pindaris. In fact except for the third war the earlier two were Maratha vs Maratha.

 

[Woifee]

There should be a mandala achievement. Paint the world in your colors with mandala gov or something.

 

[Aagney]

There should be a mandala achievement. Paint the world in your colors with mandala gov or something.

I have still not understood what the word Mandala stands here for - is it symbolising the spirituality concept within Hinduism & Buddhism meaning centre and will have some characteristic form of government with Buddhist philosophical line; or its the political Mandala meaning a group, confederacy, cartel, or a loose union.

 

[Martynios]

There is no doubt about the better generalship and discipline from the British side, but these numbers on wiki don't include the numbers of British Allies who too were Maratha from other houses. Both 1st & 2nd were succession wars where the British & Peshwa were together. And the third involved most of the armies of Bengal, Madras & Bombay Presidencies as it was an organised operation against exterminating the Pindaris. In fact except for the third war the earlier two were Maratha vs Maratha.

Then can you give us some troop numbers in a battle from one of your sources?

 

[Aagney]

Then can you give us some troop numbers in a battle from one of your sources?

Have to look for other sources, so far whatever I have written are mostly based on Wiki, and you can see clearly while giving the numbers on the both the sides, it only includes the Company's army and not of Peshwas, further it should be noted that the Peshwa as per the treaty was also maintaining some of the Company's army at its own cost, a British tactics since Plassey.

That said, even if Maratha army were 10 times larger and lost all the battle, is not the point of argument I want to make. If you read my first post on the subject as a reply to Trin, I have just picked some quote to justify a better military idea for Maratha. Frankly speaking I have never played Maratha and also have not checked what their current ideas are.

 

[count95]

The British defeated the Marathas at the 2 Anglo-Maratha war despite the Marathas having over triple the forces. The Maratha also heavily outnumbered the British in the first war. In reality is was just not feasible to dispatch all of your country's forces to fight in some colonial war halfway across the globe in the way you routinely do in game. The Marathas wouldn't have any hope of resistance against the full British army. In order to make colonial wars harder there should be a way to simulate the need for forces in a countries homeland not ridiculous military buffs

During First Anglo-Maratha War when all Marathas fought together Marathas(146,000) defeated British(93,000) and I wouldn't call 146k vs 93k being heavily outnumbered given the technological superiority of British. In later wars British had advantage of being under centralized command compared to various Maratha chiefs which fought independently without any co-ordination. By then the golden age of Marathas had already passed. That would be like taking Ottomons of 19th century (when they were declining) as baseline for setting there national ideas instead of 15-16th century Ottomans.

British never dared to attack Marathas during reigns of Bajirao I(who never lost a battle) and NanaSaheb, when Marathas were at the height of their power. During that period Marathas defeated Mughals, Nizam, Rajputs, Rohillas, Portuguese, Bengal, Asach,etc. and Mughal Emperor was practically a vassal of Marathas. Downfall began only after Third Battle of Panipat. Even the mighty Prussians were defeated by Napoleon at Jena when the golden days of Prussia had passed.

 

[creativitypersonified]

During First Anglo-Maratha War when all Marathas fought together Marathas(146,000) defeated British(93,000) and I wouldn't call 146k vs 93k being heavily outnumbered given the technological superiority of British. In later wars British had advantage of being under centralized command compared to various Maratha chiefs which fought independently without any co-ordination. By then the golden age of Marathas had already passed. That would be like taking Ottomons of 19th century (when they were declining) as baseline for setting there national ideas instead of 15-16th century Ottomans.

British never dared to attack Marathas during reigns of Bajirao I(who never lost a battle) and NanaSaheb, when Marathas were at the height of their power. During that period Marathas defeated Mughals, Nizam, Rajputs, Rohillas, Portuguese, Bengal, Asach,etc. and Mughal Emperor was practically a vassal of Marathas. Downfall began only after Third Battle of Panipat. Even the mighty Prussians were defeated by Napoleon at Jena when the golden days of Prussia had passed.

146k vs 93k means that Marathas had an army over 150% larger which is pretty significant especially when added in with the advantage of fighting in home terrain.
I do however agree that the Marathas made some incredible feats and should get some strong ideas to represent that. I just misinterpreted the post of Aagney as I thought it referred to the Maratha victories at the Anglo-Marathan wars in order to justify oda or Prussia like ideas ( both of which should really be nerfed. Prussias golden age wasn't even in the timeline ).

 

[count95]

146k vs 93k means that Marathas had an army over 150% larger which is pretty significant especially when added in with the advantage of fighting in home terrain.
I do however agree that the Marathas made some incredible feats and should get some strong ideas to represent that. I just misinterpreted the post of Aagney as I thought it referred to the Maratha victories at the Anglo-Marathan wars in order to justify oda or Prussia like ideas ( both of which should really be nerfed. Prussias golden age wasn't even in the timeline ).

Isn't 146k 57% larger than 93k and not 150%. Although I get your point.

In the Battle of Waterloo, British led Coalition forces outnumbered Napoleon by 61% (118k vs 73k) and Coalition forces fought on home terrain (Waterloo then was part of Netherlands which was part of the Coalition). That doesn't mean British were weaker than French. Rather they were equal and terrain and circumstances on that day decided the battle.

Same was the case with Maratha and British. Marathas weren't vastly inferior to British, as is being made out and used to justify by people demanding that European conquest of India should be a cakewalk like European conquest of Maya, Aztec or Africans. British conquest of India consisted of any closely fought battles(many were lost by British), unlike in case of Spanish conquest of Americas which was rather easy. So, I think people should stop complaining that they cannot conquer Indian blobs. Had there been an united state in India during 18th or 19th century British conquest of India would have been quite impossible.

 

[Gouda_boy]

Was it answered what culture group Dali and Yi will be a part of? Are they part of Tibetan or Burman?

 

[AirikrStrife]

Low value is not an obstacle either, there is no real reason to not conquer one, or a bunch of, 3 dev provinces, unlike in eu3 (where holding too many poor provinces could seriously hold you back technologically), or real life (where some land is just not worth conquering) actually a 3-dev province would be easier to get, generate less AE, cost less diplo points to pay, cheaper and faster to core. Some could even argue that conquer five 3-dev provinces is better than conquer one 15-dev one.

Yeah I know, my response was to the question why didnt bengel etc conquer tibet in real life. In real life it was too high costs for too little value. Game doesnt work that way

 

[Old Tercio]

Isn't 146k 57% larger than 93k and not 150%. Although I get your point.

In the Battle of Waterloo, British led Coalition forces outnumbered Napoleon by 61% (118k vs 73k) and Coalition forces fought on home terrain (Waterloo then was part of Netherlands which was part of the Coalition). That doesn't mean British were weaker than French. Rather they were equal and terrain and circumstances on that day decided the battle.

Same was the case with Maratha and British. Marathas weren't vastly inferior to British, as is being made out and used to justify by people demanding that European conquest of India should be a cakewalk like European conquest of Maya, Aztec or Africans. British conquest of India consisted of any closely fought battles(many were lost by British), unlike in case of Spanish conquest of Americas which was rather easy. So, I think people should stop complaining that they cannot conquer Indian blobs. Had there been an united state in India during 18th or 19th century British conquest of India would have been quite impossible.

I do agree that India shouldn't be a cakewalk, I just wanted to point out on what the Duke of Wellington said, it was all.

 

[Aikarauta]

Hype

 

[Martynios]

Isn't 146k 57% larger than 93k and not 150%. Although I get your point.

In the Battle of Waterloo, British led Coalition forces outnumbered Napoleon by 61% (118k vs 73k) and Coalition forces fought on home terrain (Waterloo then was part of Netherlands which was part of the Coalition). That doesn't mean British were weaker than French. Rather they were equal and terrain and circumstances on that day decided the battle.

Same was the case with Maratha and British. Marathas weren't vastly inferior to British, as is being made out and used to justify by people demanding that European conquest of India should be a cakewalk like European conquest of Maya, Aztec or Africans. British conquest of India consisted of any closely fought battles(many were lost by British), unlike in case of Spanish conquest of Americas which was rather easy. So, I think people should stop complaining that they cannot conquer Indian blobs. Had there been an united state in India during 18th or 19th century British conquest of India would have been quite impossible.

That is a ridiculous claim. A case can be made for the reformed Prussian army being somewhat equal to the troops of Napoleon at Waterloo, but the inexperienced Dutch and British troops would never have been able to stand against the French without numerical superiority, terrain advantage and the mistakes made by Napoleon's reshuffled officer corps.

The British defeated the Maratha's in the end even while being consistently outnumbered. No amount of defeats can alleviate the fact that they won. The Austrians and Russians defeated Frederick's Prussia at Kunersdorf and 'stackwiped' his army, that does not mean their troops were as good.

 

[Afonso de Albuquerque]

That is a ridiculous claim. A case can be made for the reformed Prussian army being somewhat equal to the troops of Napoleon at Waterloo, but the inexperienced Dutch and British troops would never have been able to stand against the French without numerical superiority, terrain advantage and the mistakes made by Napoleon's reshuffled officer corps.

I don't know about that, the British armies did pretty well against the French in the Peninsular war, often with numerical inferiority and fighting alongside fairly subpar Portuguese and Spanish allied troops...

 

[Martynios]

I don't know about that, the British armies did pretty well against the French in the Peninsular war, often with numerical inferiority and fighting alongside fairly subpar Portuguese and Spanish allied troops...

Even if the British troops in Iberia were equal to the French there, the army at Waterloo consisted mostly of fresh recruits and contained few veterans from the earlier wars.

 

[Afonso de Albuquerque]

Even if the British troops in Iberia were equal to the French there, the army at Waterloo consisted mostly of fresh recruits and contained few veterans from the earlier wars.

Fair enough.

 

[PlotVitalNPC]

1. Bhutan at 1444 is just another collection of Tibetan tribes, and did not really form a separate independent identity until after the 1600s.

2. The theory of its long independence is based on a very generous definition of what a independent state is as well as some semi-nationalistic myths, and not really supported by the historic perspectives of neighboring countries at the time.

If we're talking Bhutan, here's my complaint about it: the fact that a Bhutan tag exists for use when randomizing the world's nations prevents anyone making a custom nation from using the name Bhutan.
That's really irritating, if one wishes to do exactly that.

 

[ValhallArchitect]

Yes, I have made a huge map and a mod to fit the real historical divisions of Ming, in fact I would like to post my ugly map on wikipedia finally.
if you need my tiny mod, you could ask me in a conversation and I would give you the link to download it.

I would be interested as well