• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV and today we focus on warfare. Yes, you knew this dev diary was coming, didn’t you? It’s really quite difficult to play the game without understanding how the armies work.

Warfare is one of the most important aspects of Europa Universalis IV, and over the almost 400 years of gameplay, armies and navies will be your prime instruments of power when you go to war. You need to be aware of the different units of your armies and their strengths and weaknesses.
So, it is time to build some armies and go to war! In times of war, you will have to raise and maintain armies and fleets, conquer nations and project your power onto the world. You see them standing, moving and fighting on the map.

Battlefield casualties and general attrition will naturally reduce the number of men or quality of ships available to you as you play, but armies will be slowly reinforced and navies in a safe port will slowly be repaired. As you upgrade your technology, you will unlock different types of these units, each with different offensive and defensive characteristics. Some have attributes that favor the attack, some favor the defense, and others are suited for a more balanced approach. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages depending on your circumstances, and it will be up to you to decide what kind of army you want.

Land Units
Just as in earlier Europa Universalis games, land units are divided into infantry, cavalry and artillery. As you move through the ages, your armies will evolve from men-at-arms and armored knights to advanced musketmen and dragoons, and everything in between. The specific types of unit available to you, and its offensive and defensive abilities, are also dependent on your culture. Asian countries can get samurai cavalry, for example, but you won’t find these guys riding around Spain unless you send them there.

You select your preferred unit type of your land units, as you discover them through technology. This interface allows you to select the focus of your military forces. Each unit you build represents a force of 1000 men.

Infantry will be the bulk of your army. They are your cheapest units, and don’t take long to recruit. Your cavalry are the force you rely on in a battle to hit the flanks of an outnumbered enemy or chase down those that can’t stand against you. They cost about double what an infantryman does. Artillery only become available at Land Technology Level 7 (Limber) and they are most important for their firepower on the battlefield and their effectiveness during sieges.

When you build your armies, keep in mind that an army that is more cavalry than infantry loses the “combined arms” advantage. Cavalry could be very powerful and fast at times in this era, but rarely outnumbered foot soldiers on the battlefield.

In the military menu, you can see four columns with data on the land units. First there is the power, second the ability during fire, third is ability during shock, and finally the number of regiments you have of that category.

Naval Units
There are four types of ships: heavy ships, light ships, galleys and transports. Unlike armies, each construction represents individual ships and have a strength measured in a percentage – a ship at 100% is in perfect health. Ships take damage in battles, of course, but also if they are in the open sea for too long. (This is naval attrition.) Ships only repair when in port.

Each naval unit has characteristics, just like army units. There are no longer any separate fire/shock values per ship type, as a ship-based gun is basically a gun. However, every type of ship has a different number of cannons, and a different hull size. There are also ideas that improve your ships ability to fight, or as we call it, the ships’ power.

The four different ship types have different purposes. Your main battle fleet will be composed of heavy ships (carracks, galleons, etc.). Light ships (barques, caravels, frigates, etc.) have better speed and are OK in a fight but will mostly be used to protect and project your trade power. Galleys (and later galleases and chebecks) are designed for fighting in inland seas and enclosed bodies of water. Your transports (cogs, flytes, merchantmen, etc.) are, as the name suggests, your lightly armed vessels intended to move troops across the water.

In the military interface, ship types have four columns, first there is the power, second the amount of guns, third is hull size, and finally the numbers of ships you have of that category.

attachment.php


Leaders
Any military situation calls for extensive knowledge and leadership, and, for a monarch like yourself, how to choose which of the leaders at your service will serve what purpose in the war you just happened to find yourself in. (Clearly this war is not your fault.)

Though you can always put your monarch or a mature heir at the head of your army, you will hire most of your leaders from the general population. You can recruit generals, admirals, conquistadors and explorers as leaders. Generals and conquistadors, as land leaders, cost you 25 Military Power. Admirals and explorers, as naval leaders, cost you 25 Diplomatic Power. Once you’ve hired a leader, it can be assigned to lead any army or naval unit. As expected, generals are used to lead armies and admirals are used to lead navies. Assign conquistadors and explorers to units you wish to send far away or to uncharted lands – these are the only units that can venture into unexplored parts of the map (those sections covered by a white fog).

The skill of a leader determines how good he is at performing different strategies and tactics in combat. Leader skill is partly related to your nation’s military or naval tradition; countries with a history of warfare will be more likely to notice these talents among soldiers or general citizenry.

The four different attributes of leaders are scored from 0 to 6. “Fire” is their ability to direct the use of gunpowder or missile weapons. “Shock” measures how well the leader is at assaults, charges, whatever happens when ranged combat turns to man-to-man action. “Maneuver” is the ability of a leader to move his troops through land safely and get his forces into the right position for battle. Finally, the “Siege” attribute is most important for quickly taking down enemy cities. Paying close attention to these may be the difference between defeating an army twice your size or getting crushed.

Every leader (except your current ruler or heir) costs one military power each month to maintain. This puts a soft cap on the amount of leaders a nation can have at the same time. This also means that a monarch with low military skill and a poor selection of military advisors could find himself running a deficit in military power if he has too many generals. If you find yourself running low on military power, you can always dismiss your leaders, but this means you lose their services permanently.

Mercenaries
Every country has its own pool of mercenaries which replenishes over time, but the number of mercenaries you have already recruited impacts how many there are available for you. This isn’t an endless pool of soldiers for you to draw from. There are ideas that increase the size of the pool, as well as reducing the maintenance or cost of mercenaries. There are only mercenaries on land – you can’t hire renegade naval forces to fight for you.

Mercenaries do count against your land force limits – they are not a way to get around the costs of having to field an army that is already stretching your budget. But they do have a couple of advantages in certain situations. First, they are faster to recruit, so if you have seen your main force destroyed but can afford to get new men, mercenaries will get you back in the fight faster. Also, mercenaries fight just as well as regular troops and can be led by your generals and conquistadors if necessary. The best part is that they don't cost any manpower to reinforce, so while they fight and die, you can rebuild your own population for a later war. They are a vital part of any nation’s armed forces, and rich countries can benefit from them quite a lot.

ps. And in case you haven´t read this yet:
Paradox Hands-On Special: Master Class – Europa Universalis IV at Strategy Informer
“After crushing their main army, I then had a sudden wave of conscience as I felt bad for betraying my former allies, so I quickly ended the war in exchange for one of the core provinces I needed.”
http://www.strategyinformer.com/editorials/21807/paradox-hands-on-special-master-class
 

Attachments

  • eu4_3.png
    eu4_3.png
    2,7 MB · Views: 36.673
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyway, at least i really hope thta we wont see any portuguese galloglaih infantry this time. It made my eyes bleed

Johan wrote that Asians (as in, wide array of diverse nations, other than Japan) would get 'samurai cavalry', so you might be disappointed. Unit lists for whole techgroups seems to remain, unchanged.
 
Also - you're not seeing the massive benefit in using the same combat system from EUIII - it WORKS. All of us Paradox vets can think back to practically every single paradox game that's been released in the last ten years... how many of them had combat systems that were both extremely well balanced and fun? Narrowing in on zero. Every one of them is always a work in progress... but by taking the existing EUIII combat system and applying it to EUIV, we're going to start with one that's waaaay more polished, balanced and actually functional.

Maybe so, but I already own EU3. I don't need an EU4 dev diary to describe EU3's combat system to me. Could they not have revamped it in some way? Maybe even some new unit icons? Or new units, indeed? Or a level of differentiation that won't have Indonesians fielding samurai cavalry or Portuguese fielding gallowglasses? Let alone fixing the double penalty for non-Western nations...
 
I, for one, welcome the changes to "major powers". It is not a challenge to take Gelre to greatness, when France implodes every chance it gets (for example's sake). Hopefully, in EU4, when I build my small nation up, our few 1st tier nations will have enough fight left in them to keep the game interesting.

Yes...but I don't ALWAYS want France to be a powerhouse..... I've seen games where they maintained their power, some where they've conquored half of Europe, and games where they were broken up and eaten by their neighbors..... That was what was so magical about EU3..... ANYTHING (within reason) could happen, and every game was unique. With this new system it seems like all the attention is being given to the historical powers, so if Leinster grows up and conquers England (if it can even happen without the players intervention), it will be at a severe disadvantage against the historical powers.... Even if I take another power like the Ottomans and say conquor Portgual, I still won't ever be able to have the same ability to colonize as Portugal would have simply because the same ideas aren't available.... even though if that had happened, they would have had the same (likely even better considering the extra manpower, better trade routes in the Mediterranean, etc. ) opportunities for trade etc. that Portugal had.

We don't want to play through history - the whole fun of the game is re-writing history, and watching different possibilities play themselves out....

I think that most of you guys are TOTALLY missing the point. Complaining that combat is the same when you dont realize that while *combat* remains largely unchanged, *WAR* has been COMPLETELY redesigned is kindof ridiculous. That whole facet of gameplay will be very, very different.

The act of fighting a war is now going to be 20 times more traumatic and difficult, and will require a vast new approach to playing the game. So what if the mechanics of the actual combat are mostly similar?

Also - you're not seeing the massive benefit in using the same combat system from EUIII - it WORKS. All of us Paradox vets can think back to practically every single paradox game that's been released in the last ten years... how many of them had combat systems that were both extremely well balanced and fun? Narrowing in on zero. Every one of them is always a work in progress... but by taking the existing EUIII combat system and applying it to EUIV, we're going to start with one that's waaaay more polished, balanced and actually functional.

Yes it work's from a mechinacal point of view.... but I think YOU are missing OUR point- Combat in EU3 wasn't FUN, was difficult to understand (you can't eyeball a stack and determine how strong it is...and even once you figure that out it relied more on luck (what general you happened to get vs the general the AI happened to get, random rolls, etc.) than any real skill. I can't tell you how many times I rage-quit the game simply because I would lose major battles that there was 0 chance I should have lost (losing 30,0000 troops to a weaker enemies 5,000 weaker troops when we had similar generals etc.) because of factors I simply couldn't see.

Combat needs to be simplified, made easier to understand and follow, and most importantly made an ENJOYABLE part of the game.
 
so, nothing new
 
Having generals drain military power seems completely illogical to me unless I am missing something.
Also, can someone explain the logic behind force limits? Isn't your treasury your limit for paying troops?
Why does it cost more once you past a certain threshold?
I am glad that mercenaries will be "as powerful as your standard troops" as they were pretty useless in EU3.

Also, on the combined arms thing, was the limiting factor in reality not the cost and scarcity of horses? Until square formations were formed cavalry were,
if I'm not mistaken, superior in most fashions when compared to infantry. Perhaps a spearman/cavalry countering system would be better, such as a combat bonus for some units against others.
 
What I would like is that if the you fail to pay your mercs, they would either disband or revolt and become rebels. If the rebel mercs manage to take a province it gets a looted modifier and if they take your capital you would have to pay them off, potentially driving you further into debt.

This feature is already present in CK2, and developed to the point that sometimes the unpaid mercs just quit, many times they send a message to the opposite side asking to fight for those who pay (sometimes they become a faction and declare war on you, iirc, stealing lands if allowed).

It's quite immersive, the result is that to say that in CK2 I use mercenaries as 1st line cannon fodder is an understatement ;).

Since the feature already exists and works, I suppose they will manage to put it in EU4, perhaps making mercs become some kind of rebels with a cause, I doubt they want to create new tags making them independent.
 
The Dev Diary was nothing new, creative, or informative. EU3 players await to see what EU4 presents itself as.
 
hopefully they'll make an expansion or DLC that improves the combat. the current improvements are definately better but its still the same generic thing. i trust paradox will do something
 
Also, can someone explain the logic behind force limits? Isn't your treasury your limit for paying troops?
Why does it cost more once you past a certain threshold?
I am pretty sure force limits are meant to represent the amount of troops your nation can support with food and to a smaller extent supplies. Once you pass the limit you pay more because you are taking resources that your nation no longer has in excess.
 
Yes...but I don't ALWAYS want France to be a powerhouse..... I've seen games where they maintained their power, some where they've conquored half of Europe, and games where they were broken up and eaten by their neighbors..... That was what was so magical about EU3..... ANYTHING (within reason) could happen, and every game was unique. With this new system it seems like all the attention is being given to the historical powers, so if Leinster grows up and conquers England (if it can even happen without the players intervention), it will be at a severe disadvantage against the historical powers.... Even if I take another power like the Ottomans and say conquor Portgual, I still won't ever be able to have the same ability to colonize as Portugal would have simply because the same ideas aren't available.... even though if that had happened, they would have had the same (likely even better considering the extra manpower, better trade routes in the Mediterranean, etc. ) opportunities for trade etc. that Portugal had.

We don't want to play through history - the whole fun of the game is re-writing history, and watching different possibilities play themselves out....



Yes it work's from a mechinacal point of view.... but I think YOU are missing OUR point- Combat in EU3 wasn't FUN, was difficult to understand (you can't eyeball a stack and determine how strong it is...and even once you figure that out it relied more on luck (what general you happened to get vs the general the AI happened to get, random rolls, etc.) than any real skill. I can't tell you how many times I rage-quit the game simply because I would lose major battles that there was 0 chance I should have lost (losing 30,0000 troops to a weaker enemies 5,000 weaker troops when we had similar generals etc.) because of factors I simply couldn't see.

Combat needs to be simplified, made easier to understand and follow, and most importantly made an ENJOYABLE part of the game.

If Ottomans conquer Portugal they have no reason to discover new Asian trade route because they control the old one
 
i wish you can do a "call garrison" during a field battle on a province. IE 10k prussians are fighting 13k invading pomeranians. The prussians call on their garrison giving them 11k troops but if they lose the battle then the pommeranians immediately capture the province. Help make battles feel more decisive imo

And hopefully garrisons aren't automatic in forts. The amount of troops sitting in garrison duty is absurd in the earlier titles, especially when you consider that even forts deep within your territory are always fully garrisoned and supplied.

I think it was Conquistadors and Explorers that cost diplo and Generals and Admirals that cost military power.

Johan wrote: "Generals and conquistadors, as land leaders, cost you 25 Military Power. Admirals and explorers, as naval leaders, cost you 25 Diplomatic Power". Seems odd.
 
Remember that naval advances are paid for with diplomatic, while land is paid for with military. That's nothing new.
 
Nice!