EU4 - Development Diary - 17th March 2016

[Reverend Belial]

So let me guess, you'll tell us who's in the content pack NEXT WEEK right?

 

[tman144]

Seems cool, but the person buying the army should really get control. Too easy for the player to game by simply only joining battles that are already won, and I would never want to hire AI armies because I already have enough trouble with dumb allies giving away warscore by fighting stupid battles, let alone paying up to 5x maintenance for that privilege.

 

[Metz]

Game-breaking situation: What if I request condottieri, a lot of them, practically almost all of an AI's army. Then I put them on a ship and sink them. Then I peace out with whoever I was fighting and declare war on the country that originally lent me their army which I drowned.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Game-breaking situation: What if I request condottieri, a lot of them, practically almost all of an AI's army. Then I put them on a ship and sink them. Then I peace out with whoever I was fighting and declare war on the country that originally lent me their army which I drowned.

Considering they retain control of their army, that'd be quite a feat, wouldn't it?

Also considering you can't "request" condottieri, you can only be offered them.

 

[Pashahlis]

So let me guess, you'll tell us who's in the content pack NEXT WEEK right?

I think Jake said last stream that its the italians, north and east africans. But not sure.

 

[Metz]

Considering they retain control of their army, that'd be quite a feat, wouldn't it?

Also considering you can't "request" condottieri, you can only be offered them.

What about in multiplayer? I get another human to attach his army to mine and I board them on a ship then I let the ships sink.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

What about in multiplayer? I get another human to attach his army to mine and I board them on a ship then I let the ships sink.

I would say that's his fault for not keeping track of his army and letting them board a ship and get sunk. I mean, he's the one who chose to attach an army to your army and then not pay any attention to them. He won't do that again, especially not around you.

 

[GMOEU]

If a country A rents their army to country B to fight country C, then country C should have a very reduced opinion/hostility towards country A.
This would apply to all the countries that country B is fighting if there is more than one country involved.
This should help prevent country A from constantly renting out its armed forces, and is realistic.

Also there should be an extra cost for each soldier that gets killed in the army that you rented.
Country A rents soldiers from country B and pays country B the rent.
Country A deliberately kills off the soldiers from country B with the intention of invading country B after the war.
There should be an extra charge or rent that country A would have to pay to country B for each soldier of country B killed. The higher the proportion of country B rented soldiers killed the higher the extra cost to country A.
This would help prevent that type of strategy.

Also if you rent out your soldiers to a country there should be a period of truce between the countries after the war.
This will give time for the country that rented out the soldiers to rebuild their army.

 

[Zacharie_Redfox]

Cool, Now I can defend little nations against Baguettes, because if they become too big... God save us all.

 

[Pashahlis]

Would be good, so we can "make apart" our retarded Heirs, you know, those little bastards with 1/0/1 .

Jake already confirmed that this is not possible. Only normal generals.

 

[Chief of Staff]

Game-breaking situation: What if I request condottieri, a lot of them, practically almost all of an AI's army. Then I put them on a ship and sink them. Then I peace out with whoever I was fighting and declare war on the country that originally lent me their army which I drowned.

Solution: No players, AI or human, can disband transports while containing units not belonging to them.

EDIT: This may be a good reason why Paradox chose to not add ships to mercenary pool. Recall that if a player goes bankrupt, mercs automatically leaves. You won't have this issue, though, with hiring ships from players because these are not merc units. However, as it stands, you can't hire ships from nations yet.

 

[FrostedMantis]

To balance the possibility the player can simply run the army at around rather than fight, I think a countries Condottieri should have a rating based on say, current stats and past actions. eg. space marines are in higher demand than tech 8 troops from Ireland and by throwing your men in the front lines you make more money down the line.

 

[Incompetent]

For the hiring side, this sounds like it's basically a way to merc up on a larger scale than normal. If you just need a few mercs, then it's better to hire mercs the usual way so you get troops you can control directly. It's only when things get really desperate that you'd start paying money for other countries to send their armies over. The exception I suppose is if someone is offering you a really cheap deal, or has super-soldiers, but you can't rely on either of these things. In MP, you probably don't want to be giving a load of money to other players who aren't friendly enough to ally with you properly.

As for sending the troops, I wouldn't usually do it unless either a) I can charge so much that I can send mercs and still make a profit or b) I have manpower to burn and am locked out of warfare due to truces/regencies rather than any military limitations. Sending your manpower abroad to fight for coin (or for the outcome of a proxy war) sounds like a bad trade to me in most situations.

 

[Reverend Belial]

I think Jake said last stream that its the italians, north and east africans. But not sure.

That's correct, but if they delay it again then this will be the third week in a row where they've said "we'll tell you who's in it next week". I mean specifically who, not just the regions they live in.

 

[PsysmicSound]

So basically the player gets one free opportunity to rent out non-contributing condottieri for 18 months before the world gets wise to it? So players with no intention to rent out condottieri in the manner they're designed for are best off using it as an exploit to gain 18 months worth of condottieri payment at the highest possible rate, with no downside other than having a harder time changing their mind and renting them out in the future?

 

[PsysmicSound]

Solution: No players, AI or human, can disband transports while containing units not belonging to them.

Doesn't need to be by disbandment. Sending unescorted transports at a big enemy warfleet would also work.

 

[Chief of Staff]

Doesn't need to be by disbandment. Sending unescorted transports at a big enemy warfleet would also work.

Yes, I knew this would be a possible outcome but that's something Paradox can't really do anything about at present. The game's AI really have no ability to anticipate or think on their own. At any rate, I don't go that low... as for the others... well, that's their problem.

 

[Quaade]

Venice and Genoa sending troops with the later also sending Ships to defend Byzantium.

Great Britain buying troops from Hesse to aid their side in the American Revolution.

Just to name two.

Spain lending ships to Venice after agreeing that Pope would pay the cost and Venice would aid against Barbary state, or many other examples...

Couldn't you just bankrupt one province minors with this?

Well... You might, but since the first 18 month are paid in advance, they would only ever agree to paying it when they can afford it, and they would ever only continue it when they can afford it

My original post was misleading, sorry. I didn't mean that the practice of mercenary armies wasn't done (as you and others had pointed out with the hessian mercenaries) but that the condottieri were just mercenaries and that using the term is inaccurate, and that a better term should be found.

It´s an italian word for mercenary... While it doesn´t makes sense in reality to use the term along mercenaries, to make players know which is which from a gameplay point of view is great... Mercs are generic moneygrubbing bastards, while condottieri is my moneygrubbing bastards

Seems cool, but the person buying the army should really get control. Too easy for the player to game by simply only joining battles that are already won, and I would never want to hire AI armies because I already have enough trouble with dumb allies giving away warscore by fighting stupid battles, let alone paying up to 5x maintenance for that privilege.

Yeah, but then what stops a player from using this to weaken the AI lending you his troops? Since you would obviously make them be the cannon-fodder and the first to attack each time (just like some use merc armies alone as first wave)... Since AI has to offer it to you, it might not be that big of an issue, but depends on how AI actually use it...

 

[Metz]

What stops the AI from lending troops to a far away nation? Say for instance Oman lending troops to Dai Viet.

 

[Cryoshakespeare]

The Switzerland dream may finally come true!