Thoughts on the military [EU5 brainstorm]

[moscal]

Slowly slowly we come to end of EU4, and (probably) work about EU5 have place now.
One of the important things in EU4 was war. Diplomacy, economy, internal policy etc. hadn't first plane or main plane of fun in this game. I would like the distribution to be different, because it was a period of numerous changes that had long-term and unclear effects at the time of their adoption (eg. exile of muslims and Jews from Spain or continuation deep colaboration with nobles in Poland/Lithuania/PLC).
But since the military in EU4 was very important, I would like to share some thoughts about the possibility of development in this area of the game.

1. Evolution of army: EU4 start in 1444 and end in 1821. In early game still important are feudal levies, tribal hosts and similar form. In late game we have supremacy of professional army and civic conscription. In the meantime, there was a period of mercenary troops and intermediate phases. Something similar should have place also in next verions of Europa Univeralis. Gameplay, when main army is feudal levies, should look in other style, than during napoleonic age.
2. Logistic rework: current logistic problem is only "do in land X we have Y supply lvl to avoid too big atrition?". And OK, some parts of army fed on plunder. But as discipline, nationality, humanity, etc. grew, food and logistics were developed and managed more civilized. Thanks to this, the army had better morale, better discipline, organization, etc. Napoleon army hadn't logistic and supply lines like a germanic hordes in V century. Logistical deficiencies hindered swedish expansion during swedish Deluge. Here we should see also problems "how many units we can have from province X" or "do london regiments, in napoleonic period, can reinforce by manpower from conquered congolese tribes, if GBR hadn't naval control?".
3. Treason in the army: current armies are always loyal to central power. But we have situations, where loyality shouldn't be full. Civil wars, revolutions, separatism etc. During swedish Deluge big part of army PLC joined to Sweden, next returned to PLC. In english civil war one part of regular army join to royalists and second to parliamentarians. Therefore often mercenaries were used, because they had loyalty based on money. Elements like a ideology, faith, honor or national sympathy hadn't here place.
4. More types of unit: from EU1 do EU4 we still have "infantry+cavalry+artillery". I think, that it's time to modernize this point of the army. There were many concepts, that should be eg. 2 types of cavalry (shock and fire cav) or arts (siege vs field).

This on fast. If somebody want join and write own concepts, expectations or other about "how military should look in next EU" - here is topic

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not sure how feasible it is to make 2-3 good logistics models and fit them to the timeframes used by EU.

 

[EUnderhill]

I'm not sure how feasible it is to make 2-3 good logistics models and fit them to the timeframes used by EU.

Cutting the timeframe to 1492 to whenever Louis is beheaded would be a start.

 

[Loganplayseu4]

Cutting the timeframe to 1492 to whenever Louis is beheaded would be a start.

That still leaves many of the same issues, since warfare still greatly changed in that timeframe.

 

[Jarvin]

As controversial as it might be...
I don't dislike EU4's system of warfare. I liked it much more before the combat changes of 1.34, and even more before the god awful 1.30 merc rework, but it's still a pretty good system overall.
While I feel like some changes could be nice(a slight change of how combat rolls are calculated, an overhaul of unit types so that they are an actual choice, making cavalry bit more useful), a lot of what I often see suggested like the army treason or advanced logistics wouldn't actually make the game better, as it'd be a case of increasing the width of mechanical complexity reducing the overall depth of it.

tl;dr: I'd prefer if EU5 kept EU4's system with just a few changes.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't know, it'd be nice if the ZoC experiment ever gets out of beta testing. There are still serious problems there, whether you look at it from a historical or a gameplay lens. Like on-arrival attrition, it fails both checks rather than just one or the other and is thus in the "particularly bad" pile. Any rework to that implies a significant rework to EU 5 military, but IMO that should happen.

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

Slowly slowly we come to end of EU4, and (probably) work about EU5 have place now.
One of the important things in EU4 was war. Diplomacy, economy, internal policy etc. hadn't first plane or main plane of fun in this game. I would like the distribution to be different, because it was a period of numerous changes that had long-term and unclear effects at the time of their adoption (eg. exile of muslims and Jews from Spain or continuation deep colaboration with nobles in Poland/Lithuania/PLC).
But since the military in EU4 was very important, I would like to share some thoughts about the possibility of development in this area of the game.

1. Evolution of army: EU4 start in 1444 and end in 1821. In early game still important are feudal levies, tribal hosts and similar form. In late game we have supremacy of professional army and civic conscription. In the meantime, there was a period of mercenary troops and intermediate phases. Something similar should have place also in next verions of Europa Univeralis. Gameplay, when main army is feudal levies, should look in other style, than during napoleonic age.
2. Logistic rework: current logistic problem is only "do in land X we have Y supply lvl to avoid too big atrition?". And OK, some parts of army fed on plunder. But as discipline, nationality, humanity, etc. grew, food and logistics were developed and managed more civilized. Thanks to this, the army had better morale, better discipline, organization, etc. Napoleon army hadn't logistic and supply lines like a germanic hordes in V century. Logistical deficiencies hindered swedish expansion during swedish Deluge. Here we should see also problems "how many units we can have from province X" or "do london regiments, in napoleonic period, can reinforce by manpower from conquered congolese tribes, if GBR hadn't naval control?".
3. Treason in the army: current armies are always loyal to central power. But we have situations, where loyality shouldn't be full. Civil wars, revolutions, separatism etc. During swedish Deluge big part of army PLC joined to Sweden, next returned to PLC. In english civil war one part of regular army join to royalists and second to parliamentarians. Therefore often mercenaries were used, because they had loyalty based on money. Elements like a ideology, faith, honor or national sympathy hadn't here place.
4. More types of unit: from EU1 do EU4 we still have "infantry+cavalry+artillery". I think, that it's time to modernize this point of the army. There were many concepts, that should be eg. 2 types of cavalry (shock and fire cav) or arts (siege vs field).

This on fast. If somebody want join and write own concepts, expectations or other about "how military should look in next EU" - here is topic

1. Good point. Would connect well to estates and decentralization mechanics in a way where start by levying manpower from your powerful estates and eventually centralize your state and establish professional tax-funded military. Altough I am not really that sure it should affect the way you strategically wage wars.
2. Logistics as a concept were created in this period and allowed creation of larger and larger armies. Supply lines would be great, especially naval supply lines for naval invasion armies. By incrementally relying more and more on supply lines, the player experience can definitely change during the game.
3. That would require connection between unit and the place from which it was created ala Victoria, but great idea
4. I dont see how would that be interesting with current 1 dimensional model. Altough I would love to see some experimentation with creating a fully 2D hex/square-battlefield with terrain where two AI-led armies battle it out. That would certainly add a lot of cool factor to the game and allow devs to shove in lots of different flavor units with different abilities.

But more important to warfare gameplay would be to add something like "the operational layer" to better simulate running away from superior foe, stand offs between equal armies, recce and hit and run/guerilla/raiding/cheavauchee tactics and generally give some extra benefit for fielding cavalry or light infrantry. "Operational" part of battle should take days and have a potential for player involvement. Tactical engagement itself should be resolved instantly as most battles last just single day.

Historically speaking this periods also covered the decline of cavalry and siege warfare, which contributed to weakening of nobility. That should be represented by somehow tying heavy cavalry and forts to the noble estate and then making forts and cavalry relatively weaker as technology progresses. EU4 already has cavalry getting progressively weaker but it has no "social effect" and with forts its even worse because not only they have zero social impact but they also get progressively stronger.

 

[Sete]

1444 to 1821 is too long of a time frame to cover.

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

1444 to 1821 is too long of a time frame to cover.

Not really. You start with two armies meeting on a battlefield where they fight a decisive battle in close formation and you end up with two armies meeting on a battlefield where they fight a decisive battle in close formation. There were shifts from siege warfare towards field engagement. From feudal levies to professional soldiers and finally to state levy. And a shift from living "off the land" towards supply lines; but all that is managable within a single game.

There were of course drastic changes in tactics, but the massive shifts in strategic thinking came only from American civil war onwards. Victoria has a more problematic timeframe in this regard.

 

[Sete]

Massive changes in logistics, weapons, tactics organization and size.
It is my opinion it would end 100 years earlier. Maybe 1400 to 1700 roughly. Not a popular opinion I know.

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

Massive changes in logistics, weapons, tactics organization and size.

Unlike Total War, EU4 does not attempt to do a serious representation of tactical engagements so tactics and weapons dont really matter. Logistics underwent a progress that can be simulated by adding a supply line system that gets progressively more efficient.

Strategically the whole period falls under the first generation of warfare.

 

[arosenberger14]

In addition to the items you wrote about, I think two things EU5 needs to focus much more heavily on is the institutional organization of the military and its financing.

The reason most medieval European states at the start of EU4 used feudal armies instead of mass levies or professional armies is not because they weren't "advanced" enough to know of the concepts. Professional armies had been around in Europe since at least Roman times, and at least some concept of levying people for military service was widespread throughout the medieval period. The main barrier was the massive financial and administrative difficulties involved in training and maintaining a dedicated professional standing army. The medieval states on the whole lacked the institutional capacity to tax on the levels needed to fund such an army, or to organize a universal levy across their entire territorial expanse. Countries that tried this such as Hungary with its Black Army quickly ran into issues financing their standing army, particularly around taxing the people (especially powerful nobles) at a high enough rate to fund it.

The feudal structure of landed nobility with their own personal military forces was basically a way that the organizationally weak European monarchies could maximize their military power while minimizing costs (both financial and organizational) by offloading the expense of financing and organizing the raising of military forces to local landowners, at the price of concentrating power with a nobility who often had their own priorities. Other societies at the game's start date had other, often much more "advanced" methods of military organization. The Ming, with their massive resources, invested heavily in a specific class of military households and a professionalized leadership class, separate from their administrative class. Many Middle Eastern nations relied on slave soldiers like the Janissaries for a professional military, which had their advantages and disadvantages. Even "Primitive" nations like the Aztecs and Inca had sophisticated and professionalized military structures that were arguably ahead of many of their European contemporaries.

EU4 basically ignores these organizational issues and especially the problem of taxation. Every nation is a similar combination of a standing army and mercenaries while the only direct way to affect tax rates is by local autonomy (which mysteriously trends to zero on its own), and everything else is basially just new ideas giving you more tax money or soldiers. There's no real way to set taxes or control how you raise them, and unless you're massively screwed up or have a huge force-limit, the amount of money the state can raise is almost always enough to cover the biggest standing army your force limits would allow. I'd like EU5 to make organizing and maintaining an army be much more involved; from deciding how to organize (or re-organize) recruitment and structure, to waging a constant battle against your own people and government to wrench enough men and money out of them to support it. People generally don't like paying taxes or getting forced into military service even to governments they view as legitimate, and the game should represent these sentiments better. It would make the game a whole lot more interesting, and combined with a more detailed logistics and loyalty system (sure you can raise a big number of peasant levies, but good luck getting them to march halfway across the world to fight a war, but if you have a numerically smaller but professional military and enough gold to keep them loyal...) could make things much more interesting and less linear as states expand than the status quo of "blob harder to win more."

 

[Workiwork]

yeah. To say it with simpler words than you guys did.

I do not want to see armies march from Lisbon to Malacca to siege down a fort there and refilling its ranks somewhat magically while standing on top of the fort for 2 years (while France sieges down Lisbon. but that is another can of worms.)

 

[Danskjävel]

In addition to the many good points being brought to the table here, I'd like to add three things I think would make better gameplay:

1. shorter battles.
While realistically it should probably be A LOT shorter battles, I think gameplay-wise there are good reason for battles not just lasting a few few days. That would be too hectic, and of course difficult to re-inforce and to follow the dice-rolls which leads my to my second point.

2. Cut the 0-rolls.
And perhaps the 9's too. EU4 is a numbers game, and the RNG makes for a lot of replayability and sort of modules the non-teleology of history. But I thinks it's slightly too much randomness when it comes to battles. Cutting the 0's would make it slightly less random.

3. Reinvent sieges.
Others have hinted how the game does not really grasp the different roles of artillery, or the progression of the role of forts through the period - or how that ties into social and societal changes. But appart from that sieges from a game play perspective are absolutely horrible. The feeling of sitting on 78% and not winning the siege and then have the enemy win a siege in 14% is so bad. Not so much for the sake of winning or losing the war - but because it means more idle time where you sit an wait for even more ticks.

 

[Aepdneds]

3. Reinvent sieges.
Others have hinted how the game does not really grasp the different roles of artillery, or the progression of the role of forts through the period - or how that ties into social and societal changes. But appart from that sieges from a game play perspective are absolutely horrible. The feeling of sitting on 78% and not winning the siege and then have the enemy win a siege in 14% is so bad. Not so much for the sake of winning or losing the war - but because it means more idle time where you sit an wait for even more ticks.

imo this should be changed so that a siege can only be won by assaulting the fort or by active capitulation of the defenders, maybe a global moral loss if you let all your defenders die before capitulating.

 

[ero_sk]

I think that a system akin to the one from Imperator: Rome would do quite well. With improved armies automation, units composition, tactics and also aforementioned ability for battalions to join revolutions (similarly to how it worked in Victoria II). I just hope that EU5's development team won't try to completely revolutionise the warfare system, having good intentions but ending up with a half-baked product at release that will take years to fix (I'm looking at you, Vicy 3).

 

[arosenberger14]

In addition to the many good points being brought to the table here, I'd like to add three things I think would make better gameplay:

1. shorter battles.
While realistically it should probably be A LOT shorter battles, I think gameplay-wise there are good reason for battles not just lasting a few few days. That would be too hectic, and of course difficult to re-inforce and to follow the dice-rolls which leads my to my second point.

2. Cut the 0-rolls.
And perhaps the 9's too. EU4 is a numbers game, and the RNG makes for a lot of replayability and sort of modules the non-teleology of history. But I thinks it's slightly too much randomness when it comes to battles. Cutting the 0's would make it slightly less random.

3. Reinvent sieges.
Others have hinted how the game does not really grasp the different roles of artillery, or the progression of the role of forts through the period - or how that ties into social and societal changes. But appart from that sieges from a game play perspective are absolutely horrible. The feeling of sitting on 78% and not winning the siege and then have the enemy win a siege in 14% is so bad. Not so much for the sake of winning or losing the war - but because it means more idle time where you sit an wait for even more ticks.

I don't think that the problem with warfare is too much RNG, and think that taking randomness away would be detrimental. As you said, crazy random shit could and did happen in history, and should be able to happen in the game. D&D wouldn't be nearly as fun without the ability to critically fail or succeed. What we could use are better ways to tilt the odds that come with actual tradeoffs... make it possible to invest in a seige corps at the cost of it taking so much tax money your people become less loyal and giving you a politically powerful militarily that's got the potential to throw a napoleon at your system.

I think that a system akin to the one from Imperator: Rome would do quite well. With improved armies automation, units composition, tactics and also aforementioned ability for battalions to join revolutions (similarly to how it worked in Victoria II). I just hope that EU5's development team won't try to completely revolutionise the warfare system, having good intentions but ending up with a half-baked product at release that will take years to fix (I'm looking at you, Vicy 3).

Releasing half baked products, albeit with great potential, that takes years to fix is kinda what Paradox has always done.

 

[ero_sk]

Releasing half baked products, albeit with great potential, that takes years to fix is kinda what Paradox has always done.

I disagree. They haven't been releasing half-baked features to such an extent in a sequel game. There's a difference between a half-baked feature that gets incremental improvements over time, and a feature that looks more like an alpha version, with major issues, workarounds and missing functionality.

 

[RaccoonCity]

I may get a lot of disagrees for saying this, but I would like EU5 to not have the classical micromanage system of units.

I don't want to beat the AI at wars because I know how to move my units trough provinces better. I want to beat the AI at wars only because I have better conditions to win: either bigger armies/navies, better fighting stats (morale, discipline, etc), better tech, better terrain conditions or better allies. And of course a little bit of classical RNG into the formula. But I don't want to win mainly because I can trick the AI through the movement of provinces, which always seemed to me as a weak way of beating the AI.

I was hoping to see the Vic3 warfare system as it would maybe be a good one to use in EU5, but clearly the Vic3 system is awful.

So what I would like to see is a semi-automatic warfare system, that is neither as micromanaging intensive as EU4 neither as abstracted as Vic3.

I love EU4, I have thousands of hours at it, but I usually quit all my games when the army micromanage gets too intensive, repetitive and boring in this big wars that involve like 50-100 army stacks moving and invading hundreds of provinces, in which you have to select exactly the movement of your stacks. I think that level of control is unnecessary and ruins the fun of the game for me.

Even HOI4, that is a lot more heavily focused on warfare, has a much more comfortable warfare mechanic with the fronts system. This system is not ideal for the type of warfare in the EU4 time period, but I would like a system like that adapted to the time period that doesn't make me babysit all my stacks so much.

 

[moscal]

shorter battles.
While realistically it should probably be A LOT shorter battles, I think gameplay-wise there are good reason for battles not just lasting a few few days. That would be too hectic, and of course difficult to re-inforce and to follow the dice-rolls which leads my to my second point.

This will be negative change.
In multiplayer longer times of battles are very important for sny form of control warfare.

BTW next idea.

If warfare would be modernize, also should be any "auxilla regiments". Poles used lithuanian Tatars (Lipkowie). Russians also used Tatars and Mongols. In Colony French used native Americans. Brits used Indians. Persians used Caucassians etc. With other military traditions and skills and stats this can give more interesant options to management of war.
This would be important in new versions of supply and manpower systems.