EU3 Oddities and Massive Sea Mammals

[Natte]

Europa Universalis is pretty much the Paradox game I spent the most time on by far. Really enjoy the game and keep coming back to it with different scenarios in mind. However there are some things I always found to be a bit strange/nonsensical. Some have already been answered by developers in interviews and posts and such, but some haven't. So just gonna bring them up to see if anyone here knows of anything is gonna be done about them, personally I've not found anything on them.

1. Annexing capitals, especially coastal ones like Venice, Constantinople and Ostpreussen. I really think it should be possible to annex capitals without having to completely cut them off first. Maybe for a higher price, but it should be an option. Just an example, it means that as Brandenburg/Poland you could conquer Ostpreussen without first having to conquer all of Livonia first. Or conquer Lübeck without having to conquer a random frozen colony in Ungava first.

2. Impossible to build ships in none core provinces. Maybe it should be a little more expensive to do, or maybe take a bit longer, but I do not see why it's impossible. Don't see an game balances issues with changing it either tbh. Just think the current system is weird.

3. Long distance logistics/attrition/reinforcement. Now before you freak out and start thinking about HoI3, I am not talking anywhere close to that. Just that in EU3 it's non-existent, in the 16th century you can send an army of 200 000 men to conquer India or 50 000 to conquer the Inca and so on. In reality an army like that would lose most of its men before it even reached the shore. And from there on there would be no reinforcement except native troops or if another army was sent to reinforce, and on top of that such an army would be almost completely reliant on the country side in hostile territory to feed itself, and would suffer high attrition because of it.

This is imo is a bigger reason why it's so easy for European nations to conquer the rest of the world, more so even than the tech advantage (which I do not want to discuss in this thread, keep it to the existing thread), the logistical limitations simply aren't there. For example as France you can send a huge army to East Asia to invade China, and it will reinforce just as well as an army you are fighting with in northern Italy. I really think there should be a diminishing return on reinforcements the further away/the longer the reinforcement route is from your core territories (be it on a province from province basis or simply capital for simplicity to code). So that the further away you are the less reinforcement you get, having outposts along the road/sea line should help a bit ofc, but not completely make up for the massive distance.

This could also make it a very good option for you to recruit local troops to bolster your army in faraway lands, just like European did historically in both the Americas and India. Because reinforcing an army in China as France or vice verse would be incredibly inefficient. Your armies would be unable to effectively reinforce so far away from home and would eventually be whittled down and defeated by the Chinese (Or Indians, or Incan, or Japanese etc etc) who are in home territory and have easy access to reinforcement, so recruiting local troops would be advisable if the war is expected to take any serious amount of time.

I just think it would make it more challenging for the player, and indeed mirror reality a bit better than 50k Spanish armies invading the Inca in the 16th century.

 

[Fawr]

On point 3, I think the current naval transport/attrition mechanics do let you move troops long distances - as long as you micromanage their route. So I'd agree that the combination that the current system has is bad. Its like the old EU1 mechanic where you got attrition while moving from province to province, as long as you didn't stop for a couple of days at the start/end of the month...

Point 1 makes the most sense for countries like Byzantium, but for the majority of the time period it should be possible to take the capital (You probibly should restrict it so that is only an option if it is the only province which is adjacent to one of your areas).

I thought point 2 was there to restrict countries from getting a new port and immediatly using it as a launchpad into a new ocean (particually using Panama to build a large Pacific navy). St. Petersburg would be the counterexample though.

 

[Slaxl]

On point 3, I think the current naval transport/attrition mechanics do let you move troops long distances - as long as you micromanage their route. So I'd agree that the combination that the current system has is bad. Its like the old EU1 mechanic where you got attrition while moving from province to province, as long as you didn't stop for a couple of days at the start/end of the month...

Point 1 makes the most sense for countries like Byzantium, but for the majority of the time period it should be possible to take the capital (You probibly should restrict it so that is only an option if it is the only province which is adjacent to one of your areas).

I thought point 2 was there to restrict countries from getting a new port and immediatly using it as a launchpad into a new ocean (particually using Panama to build a large Pacific navy). St. Petersburg would be the counterexample though.

I get what you mean about it making sense for Byzantium, and it became isolated because it never fell. So make post-war peace negotiations factor that in on the war score. Standard nowhere province unconquered = 50% score, conquered = 10%, for important places it goes up tremendously, so the Ottomans might take all the land around, but to claim Constantinople without it falling would be prohibitively hard, like 150% war score, 50% when conquered.

 

[Ayeshteni]

I don't see anything about Massive Sea Mammals.

Aye.

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

I don't see anything about Massive Sea Mammals.

Aye.

Yeah, where are the promised massive sea mammals? -.- Im immeasurably displeased

 

[Natte]

On point 3, I think the current naval transport/attrition mechanics do let you move troops long distances - as long as you micromanage their route. So I'd agree that the combination that the current system has is bad. Its like the old EU1 mechanic where you got attrition while moving from province to province, as long as you didn't stop for a couple of days at the start/end of the month...

Point 1 makes the most sense for countries like Byzantium, but for the majority of the time period it should be possible to take the capital (You probibly should restrict it so that is only an option if it is the only province which is adjacent to one of your areas).

I thought point 2 was there to restrict countries from getting a new port and immediatly using it as a launchpad into a new ocean (particually using Panama to build a large Pacific navy). St. Petersburg would be the counterexample though.

On point 3, yeah you can either do that or just get military access in a neighbor to the "to-be-invaded" country and your troops will reinforce back to full strength in no time, either that or just have 1 colony nearby. Doesn't matter how much of your army died on the way, once you have landed in a friendly area they will be fully reinforced just as fast as they would've in your capital. Just think distance should slow reinforcements down a tad.

Point 1, indeed that's what I thought as well.

Point 2, figured as much, just a bit silly that for example with Russia after you reach the pacific you will have pirate fleets consisting of a few gallies blockading all of your ports and nothing can be done about it, likewise if you conquer Egypt, every port in the red sea will be blockaded for a few decades. Or as Austria you finally conquered Venice and got access to the Adriatic, but behold, Venice has lost the ability to produce boats for the next 50 years. :unsure:

To be perfectly honest I would be fine with not being able to build ships from non-cores right away if that's their decision as far as game balance goes even if I wouldn't like it. As long as I had a way to get rid of the pirates, coastal defenses/forts maybe?

I get what you mean about it making sense for Byzantium, and it became isolated because it never fell. So make post-war peace negotiations factor that in on the war score. Standard nowhere province unconquered = 50% score, conquered = 10%, for important places it goes up tremendously, so the Ottomans might take all the land around, but to claim Constantinople without it falling would be prohibitively hard, like 150% war score, 50% when conquered.

Sounds fair to me.

Here you go, the great Chinese Sea Mammal preparing to invade Britain in 1632, a real beauty.