Levies could help here. Levies could join rebellions, but standing armies will remain loyal (unless you don't pay them...)
-
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.
Levies would work if you revamp the population thing. Make it like in Vicky games and you'll have a darn great EUIV game
This is the only thing that would make every Empire suck to playImage the British Empire had 20k of men recruited in America. All of them are American revolutionaries <3 Great success. Same would work for China to go with their rebellious nature of an Empire.
How would that suck? Its the American revolt that I can easily defeat that I find dull. Forcing me to recruit Hessian mercenaries as Britain would just be historical.
In the economic screen, you'll see a 'western technology' or 'oriental technology', so on. I'd like this to be removed all together and I find this is a fairly good idea.
But historically, The Africans (mainly north or east Africans) should of had the capability to be just as advanced as the Europeans. It was their terrain that made them so bad. So I think there should be a tech bonus for each province, based on their terrain and population. If it's small and desert, it will generate almost nothing, but if it's large and say on a plain, it will generate large amounts of this tech bonus
Also, I noticed the ability to buy tech here it that's a smart idea too
But historically, The Africans (mainly north or east Africans) should of had the capability to be just as advanced as the Europeans. It was their terrain that made them so bad. So I think there should be a tech bonus for each province, based on their terrain and population. If it's small and desert, it will generate almost nothing, but if it's large and say on a plain, it will generate large amounts of this tech bonus
Also, I noticed the ability to buy tech here it that's a smart idea too
There is no such thing as latin tech or asian tech in this system. Everyone advance the same. It just a matter of trade, location, resources.
Making a system where troops need to be around the area it is recruited. If left for prolong foreign station, they might revolt.
Well, the Brits did recruit many Americans to fight in the Revolution. So I have no problem with that.
I do agree that it makes no sense to have to keep them near where they are recruited. But local troops really should be available, as they were used a lot.
I do agree that it makes no sense to have to keep them near where they are recruited. But local troops really should be available, as they were used a lot.
Only if they revamp the population. Notice that colonist are often militia too. So we can take colonist and form them into regiments. This will also revamp the colonial model as more and more people are needed to go to the America.
Only if they revamp the population. Notice that colonist are often militia too. So we can take colonist and form them into regiments. This will also revamp the colonial model as more and more people are needed to go to the America.
I disagree. The Portuguese and Spanish used lots of local troops in their early conquests, which can't happen in the game without modding.
The Brits and French followed their example, to some extent, although since standing armies did increase during the time, it wasn't quite so big a deal for them.
It's really something which would be best replicated by hiring mercs anywhere. Remember, everyone made use of local rivalries in expanding their empires; a corollary of this is that the side you backed, would have some troops available. The North and South American colonies were not the only pattern of what happened.
Those locals are the smaller tribes that wishes vengeance upon the Spanish and Portuguese's enemies. They are, in form of alliances rather than mercs. Beside if you're going to hire Hessian infantry, hire them in Europe.
The Americas need their own standing army, and the army should be coming directly from the population.
Hiring mercs anywhere would indeed be a cool idea: You could click on any province in your realm (including non-core, recently conquered) and check if any local warlike people can be recruited.
Ideally in every province there would be several things:
- a locally available number of people who could potentially be recruited
- a local "province opinion" about how much they like your government, which depends on religious tolerance, past grievances, local spending and event modifiers... a little bit like the old revolt risk value but different (more like the CK2 opinions)
- province-specific modifiers, that can change the availability of troops, their morale/strength, or their opinion about you.
If the local opinion value is high enough, you could hire a portion of the locally available manpower, to serve as auxillaries in your military. You'd have to pay them regularly or lay them off when you can't pay.
If the local opinion value is low, it means they dislike you. They wouldn't serve you. If another power occupies the province, they might flock to his banners. The local forces could also rise in revolt against you.
Think about it... it would potentially be very powerful... all the things you could simulate by this:
- Spanish and Portuguese recruitment of low-tech but plentiful natives, to serve in the wars of conquest against native states
- Any type of feudal recruitment system in Europe, the middle east, Asia, ...
- British recruitment of warlike peoples in India (Sikhs, Gurkhas, Panjabi, etc)
- Rebellion of such native troops against you, if you piss them off
- Local troops joining an invader against you
- Some provinces being A LOT harder to pacify than others, on account of there being a different sort of people than the province next door (despite both being of same culture and religion)
- Warlike semi-nomadic tribes in Islamic states, who don't interact much with the government unless the ruler calls them to serve him in a holy war
- Warlike tribes, becoming seriously pissed at the government and raising their flags for a pretender half-brother of the Sultan, or for autonomy
- Warlike tribes, who are normally apathetic about politics but who raise total hell if the Spanish or other Catholics invade their province (-> this could make North Africa SOOO MUCH harder to conquer, beyond the cities, for the Spanish, as it should be!!)
- Your government being much more popular in some regions, than in others, but having this reverse when you change your government or the policies (the opinions would change automatically just like they do in CK2, there doesn't have to be an annoying province event every time the locals react to something you do)
By relatively simple to use province modifiers, you could create highly unique systems, whereby the EU4 would would no longer just be a jumble of bland and generic provinces. Some provinces could have warlike people, some not. Some would have a really difficult relationship with the government, others not. And none of that would necessarily have to be tied to bland, generic stuff like culture and religion. (Which is all that matters in EU3). You could simply tag some provinces as "urban", some as "rural", and they would behave differently. An urban province could easily yield to a conqueror, while the rural ones would be much more resilient. Some would have "warlike natives", others could have "very peaceful natives", and in contrast to the "native ferocity" in EU3 it would persist after colonization until you do something about it. (It would also not go away simply because you defeat the natives once or twice in battle.)
Technology thread turns into a Wild Geese recruiting station. So where are those pickled old English men?
So where are those pickled old English men?
China had famines because it is enormous, modern China is 94.3% of Europe and the Qing were 144% of Europe, in that area naturally some provinces had bad harvests. Famines only point to systematic weakness if the government can not solve the issue. The Ming fell not just because of corruption, but because of a perfect storm, widespread crop decreases, epidemics and extreme deflation of silver caused the government to be incapable of taking care of the country. This was intensified because the of the Mandate.
Oh and by the way, Ming heavily used gunpowder weaponry, the Qing didn't because they descended from nomads and were thus heavily cavalry based.
I don't know how much of the Ming army used firearms, though I am sure someone more adept in those matters than I will enlighten me.
China never invented advanced anti-fortress artillery because the Chinese city walls were incredibly thick (I'd say over sixty feet thick isn't too shabby) and so artillery was useless in that regard. Because Chinese metallurgy was better they copied and improved the designs.
If I remembers right, Ming had cannons really early on. And they had those spears with gunpowder in them. Also early grenades and rockets/firework?
I agreed on the Chinese wall. They were really fat and tall. Thicker than the European counter part. Also moving the cannon around China was a big pain. So those cannons were mounted on the fortress rather than carry by horse back. No idea about Chinese metallurgy.
Yes, also you forgot continuous flamethrowers, notice how anti-personnel the artillery are in nature.
To breach Chinese city walls you climbed them... or brought heavy artillery like tanks Plus of course China was largely fighting nomads so it's not like there were many cities to fight. What people tend to forget is that the invading Manchu actually had an expert artillery corps of 20k which was not exactly shabby for the time, and then of course what really let them win was a defecting Chinese general. Oh and uh China had some fairly portable cannons, the kind that can be carried by horse back and only take 1-2 people to use (and I'm not talking hand cannon here).
Don't know much about flame thrower. But yes, the only way to fight Chinese wall is to climb it or sap it. And Manchu won also because of the chaotic Ming's court at the time. Many factors that enabled the Manchurian success.
And don't know about the lighter cannons.
The Ming crumbled under a perfect storm of internal and external factors.
I don't know if there are any English references.
Everyone had light cannons. The first Europeans to use gunpowder weapons extensively were the Hussites who pioneered mobile artillery tactics.
Didn't the Qing have plenty of Ming soldiers and basically just continue with the Ming army? I know the Mongols completely adopted Chinese infantry tactics.
Didn't the Qing have plenty of Ming soldiers and basically just continue with the Ming army? I know the Mongols completely adopted Chinese infantry tactics.