A MASSIVE CHANGE to Combat System in EU5
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ค. 2024
- EU5 'Tinto Talks' playlist - • EU5 'TINTO TALKS'
Link to TT - forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...
Join our future mps here on Discord: / discord
Twitch: / zlewikktv
Instagram: / zlewikk
FB Group: / zlewikk
Patreon: / zlewikktv
Twitter: / zlewikk
Merch: www.strategywear.com/
Europa Uuniversalis 5, known as 'Project Ceasar' is coming! - เกม
![โอ้มายก๊อด! ไม่ถึงชั่วโมงหมดเป็นแสน 😅 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.42 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OH2ShXfO6tA/mqdefault.jpg)
EU5 'Tinto Talks' playlist - th-cam.com/play/PLQYwQrZmzDdJKoAdugXTp-g6fG0AI7dNd.html
there is not 100k cannons in 100k cannon stack. you use 100k manpower to it so there is 100k soldiers working with cannons. but group of them works with only 1 cannon. lets say 5-10 so there is 10-20k cannons still way too much but not 100k
@@arekzawistowski2609 yes I know how it works. It's still stupidly too much to maintain canons in Eu4 timeframe army
I can't wait for when Johan will reveal that Project Caesar is actually March of the Eagles 2, and not any of this 'EU5' lies.
Namr could potentially be March of the peasants
City Skylines: Total War
Looks like doing death wars in MP will actually lead to death. People will not want to over commit to wars if losing men in battle means less population. I think its a great change.
More historical wars
people deathwar in vic2 mp all the time???
@@_Beans_ when getting partitioned, yes
wow hordes are actually going to be devastating early game if they have the same level of combat advantage as EU4. Imagine stackwiping a countries levies on flat terrain and that country taking a huge hit to population.
Sack of Bagdad: 200k dead pops. i think sacking will be even worse
@@arekzawistowski2609 I wish so
Frankly my only real remaining fear at this point is that there´s now gonna be so many interacting pieces that it really really matters to have a competent AI so as to not make the game too easy for a player. This system with EU4´s AI seems waaaay too easy to ´game´ if you know what you´re doing, so I really hope they keep that in mind.
But OH MAN can I not wait to expereince this new combat system! Logistics AND a more diverse and combat-oriented army? It´s a dream come true......
Don't worry, majority of the players will ruin their playthroughs by themselves ;-)
i mean eu4 AI is old even for 2014 standards, they definitely upgraded, well hopefully if not i guess mods will:))
Eh, my main concerns are performance and bugs. I want to be able to play the game.
But just about every feature announced seems like an improvement over EU4
The levies/standing armies mechanics and change over time is in my opinion a much better way of depicting armies in this time period. I feel like this was one of my biggest issues with eu4 that it doesnt show the huge changes that happened in europe very well imo. Especially like if you compare how ck depicts medieval feudal society and then how eu4 depicts the same period its always felt a bit jarring and strange to go from levies to standing armies when much of europe in 1444 or whatever was still very feudal. But this i think will make for a much more engaging and immersive game when it comes to playing through the transition from the medieval to modern world.
Also looking forward to any other ways they show this sort of stuff in actual game mechanics changing rather than events or things like that
They should have called early units "Companies" which are around 100, and in the middle they become regiments, and then battalions.
Seems like a CK2 system to me.
Your personal retinue that's kept wherever you want. Plus levies that come from individual provinces and vassals. And mercs that are hireable exclusively.
It's a good thing, I wonder how sieges will work.
Keep in mind that the system will chnage as the game goes. Levies will be unimportant in xviii century
Unless u are russia
@@ZlewikkTV And in the early 1800-s levies might be reintroduced as mobilization mechanics!
11:33 YES! One of my favorite mechanics from CK3 and Imperator! Having actual army compossition and not just inf/cav/arty ratio :D
Finally, actual early war artillery representation. Far too often an offensive army wasn't able to bring forward their artillery due to many factors (especially since they were slow, at least until the Napoleonic Wars).
Me, early game, deliberately getting a small rebel stack so I can raise levies before declaring war.
I wonder if the battle themselves work will be changed like adding a 3rd line exclusively for cannons and whatever these auxiliary units are. If your main lines fall then your limited and probably expensive cannons will be at stake maybe incentivizing tactical retreat over a all out loss
Love you man. Thank you. Dont be jealous Ludi, i love you both as equally 🫶
i think the armies levies and standing will be more like ck2 or ck3 rather than imperator
9:10 army tradition here seems to be working more like army experience in Imperator Rome instead of EUIV.
cant wait for it!
Hatless Zlewikk does not exist he cannot hurt you.
Hatless Zlewikk:...
I have an alternative idea to Levies:
Basically I'm not super happy with the idea that levies cannot be raised before declaring a war. I think it should be allowed cause otherwise larger countries e.g. Russia will always be at a disadvantage even if they are the ones declaring the war. If they're worried a country will snowball in the conflict just because they raised levies before war declaration, perhaps a good alternative would be "prepare for war against ..." button on the war declaration screen. Basically, you can have spy networks in various countries (separate from diplomats), if Sweden wants to start a war and prepare their army ahead of time they click e.g. "prepare for war against Denmark", then they will be able to raise their levies and declare war on said country within set time frame and Denmark will have a spy network whose efficiency will give them a chance to discover the fact a foreign power is preparing to invade them, if they discover the plot then great, they can also raise their levies and prepare, but if they don't then it's kinda their fault anyway for not efficiently keeping tabs on their neighbors.
There will of course be standard war declaration which will work the same way as it normally did and levies will have to be raised post declaration.
Anyway I think it's a reasonable solution and would be a great addition also offering an extra layer of diplomatic dynamics.
i really hope that the manpower/levy system will be different based on culture. For example, the hordes never really had a concept of "standing army" versus "levies" because there, almost all able-bodied men were trained in the art of horseback riding and archery. Similarly, some countries like the Byzantine Empire had a much longer history of standing armies. And the first standing army in the HRE was the Brunswickian "Lilienvente" consisting of 56 soldiers.
Does anybody think that levi will gradually become less important but in the early 1800-s levies might be reintroduced as mobilization mechanic?!
I love all these changes. Super psyched to see how they revamp the combat simulation, really hoping for a drastic change there. Always hoped for maybe "football manager" style simulation.
I think in the aggregate a lot of these changes will make it feel different but if they want the game to live for 5-10 years they need to dare a bit here in the early days.
9:11 3 if you count maintaining your own forts
Good that they say some things cannot be modeled since the AI is just not up to par. But it means they can if they improve it.
This is going to make multiplayer so much cooler. Periods of growth involve less gamey dev clicks and cheeze like intentional bankruptcy etc, as in Eu4 everything was connected by the nebulous mana, and too many things interacted in unintentional ways.
Now those periods will truly be about maximizing population and tax, using stability to increase native production and trade, and probably some more diplomacy during peace besides alliances and bankrolling. Allies will be about what they bring to the market too! Like if you have a neighbor with a surplus in horses, and you are someone who loves Cav, you will probably have to negotiate with them. This is because of that beautiful pop system which brings things together so nicely. If you death war with them over the Cav infrastructure, you can just end up destroying that very infrastructure and ruining that horse production you so wanted. It is actually more beneficial to trade with them for horses, and focus your wars elsewhere where your Cav advantage matters more. Thats just a level of realistic strategy that Eu4 never touched besides snaking gold provinces.
Death warring in Eu5 multiplayer is going to be so damn fun to watch. Now, instead of just ridiculous debt and stability modifiers at the very end, we will see an actual razing of the land, the last dredges of soldiers dying and leaving both nations depopulated and so much weaker. A nation playing tall and keeping safe behind forts would actually be able to win a war against a massive empire that is exhausted in such a way, and that empire would not think to continue the fight and would instead give up whatever land they want. Eu4 teased this idea, but Eu5 is taking it to the next level.
Then there is actual logistics. While I would not want a 50k European army to be diseased in the new world or africa to the point of being 1k afterwards, i would love to see accurate attrition while a little lessened.I doubt anyone actually wants a disease outbreak to essentially end their entire war, and cause lasting economic problems. But hey, if that was the case and universal, that would make war so much more important, conservative, and left for chance. Making a sprawling empire would then sound impossible if you started small, and god forbid you try for 3 mountains, it looks like only hordes will be able to WC early.
You can only build manpower buildings in your core culture provinces, meaning cultures with less provinces will be at a disadvantage. Interesting.
Also I wonder how nations with relatively sparse populations (Siberians if they will still be playable and steppe guys) will be affected by levies being tied to pop. I guess steppe people will have unique mechanics in early game. Also curious to see how the arrival of Europeans affects natives in the Americas, if smallpox will be simulated.
I like it, but I have just one issue:
Whats the point of having manpower or, more precisely why, making it comes from buildings? I think that in a game with pops a system of reinforcement like vic2 works better, where soldiers are a type of pops and are managed as so, not by having a building that generate another value which makes things more convoluted. And then this gives the ability to create another estate to be aware of, the Army, which with the expansion of standing regiments will grow more and more powerful.
It's still linked to pops, the manpower itself you can understand as group of people in reserves that got the relevant training and drill. The buildings goal is to train these people to be in the standing army.
I hate that im hyped, i dont wanna be dissapointed again by paradox
Me too. I'm scared restless that they might name sicily Trinacria and not sicily
This sounds more and more like March of the Crippled 2...
No hat?
No hat for Tinto Talks, same as for all of them before!
@@ZlewikkTV I know. That joke seemed funnier in my head.
Mam nadzieję że EU5 będzie połączeniem Vic3, Imperator Rome i CK3
This is why mabye, an island strategy might be very good to preserve a population...
A SICILIAN POPULATION
SEEEEEH LEEEEETS GOOOOO SICILIA MENTIONED E CHI MINCHIA MI SIGNIFICA STU ITALIANU
Why do you require your own territory to reinforce? I'm not even talking about unwilingly signing up occupied local population (why not btw, i quess more realism for the throne of realism is their aim). There were working recruitment/refill/resupply systems, feudal campains could have had a decent level of organization. You almoust never will run out of troops, since one and only one truth about feudal mobilisation - it will fail regardless, you'll always have gathering 20-30% of your total potential pool (talking about nobility, not population overall). You can easily run out of money or loot feeding this crowd, not actual manpower, that's true. That's exactly why defensive stance was so effective.
If they really want it, let it be "controlled territory" or "cannot reinforce without money", otherwise back to CK3 style "supplies", when a bunch of vikings suffer from "shortages" while frkng raiding the hell out of provinces.
Sounds fun, but a concern I have is that wars will boil down to just 1 all deciding battle, as it seems to be way harder to raise a competent army quickly again. While this may be more accurate historically, I dont think its the best gameplay experience, especially since the impact of loosing men in war is way harsher. I can already see how you are building up a nation for hours and hours just to have it all crumble because you lost a big battle against ottoblob.
this is my concern to. Sometimes being to accurate is simply not fun.
Thats the whole point, the stakes will be so much higher and losing manpower will have longterm consequences unlike in eu4
Praying it's not Vic3 combat
Johan said multiple times already that no
I dont know why everyone is saying it is a huge change. It is literally the bare minimum reform they could do, while staying true to pthe pops mechanic.
Bruh, if you sum up all changes it's s huge difference
They are invoking CK3 and Victoria 3. I'm not excited for any of these changes.
More like vicky 2, Imperator and eu3, which Johan developped. He hates vicky 3
Little concerned they are moving too far away from the satisfying empire building game of Eu4 to more a slow-paced simulator. Really tried CK3 and couldn't get into it and wonder if EU is being made more like that game. Still, I understand the beginning era has to have limitations so you can't blob out of control by 1400. Hope they have a second start date in that case if we want to skip the early era and play more with standing armies, etc. They did say they might have two start dates for EU5. I think it might be a good idea to support two start dates if this is the type of game they are making.
The game actually borrows a lot from the pop mechanics from Imperator. Obviously we can't know for sure until the game releases and the economy economy mechanics are way more complex, but I think you can have opportunities for early expansion as the ottomans, 100 years war, or the collapse of the Yuan dynasty.
I honestly dont want a levy system, the eu4 army system worked great and shouldnt be changed
The levy system is juz for early game as eu5 will start 110 years prior eu4. It will develop into standinf army system over time of a game and you wanr have shitty 5 million armies as in eu4
This is no longer Europe Universalis its something else...
Hearts of crusader universalis
@@Afdch Don't forget Imperator, 30% or so of the mechanics going into Project Caesar were already in Imperator (pops, cultural assimilation over time, food supply for armies, etc.)
@@arndorus5294 I suppose something good came out of a failed game.
It's clearly Project Ceasar
Yeah they are going in a vastly different direction for Europa Universalis if this is in fact still going to be an EU game.
Keep in mind that the system will chnage as the game goes. Levies will be unimportant in xviii century
So it’s like Vic3 in the eu4 timeline😒
Not even close, Johan hates Vicky 3
@@ZlewikkTV I mean it’s got a very similar trade, production, and even has a conscription mechanic with levies which was in Vic2. Like I get it, it is better in some areas, but I feel like they’re moving away from the very interesting points of the times. Ck is all about the characters and medieval life. Eu is all about colonization, conquest, and religion. Vic is all about trade, production lines, nationalism, and technology. Hoi is all about the Second World War and unit building.
It just feels like they’re packing too much into the time period to be able to properly enjoy it all. No hate against you or the developers, that’s just what it seems to me.
Why I think this is going to be mix of Imperator: Rome , something from EU4, something new, this new s#it game aka ,,Civilization'' and Total War: Attila? And why I think this game will be only place in Europe, North Africa, Minor Asia, Mddle East and a little of West Asia(the rest not).
I think this can't be EU5, but who knows?
@@iromobile its either eu5 or entirely new ip
but from all they showcased so far it seems its eu5
@@spatrk6634 Maybe
this game will be too complicated to actually enjoy it, it seems.
This game is looking more and more like a logistics simulator. I dont mind that but it might be very different (or too different) to eu4 and previous. And maybe offputting to new players
If you had an eu4 copy, but without 11 years of dev, why would you play it? It has to differentiate and a lot of stuff is common to what they did (eu3 dynamic trade) or wanted to do (pops system in EU4) in previous EU games. Of course it's very risky if it ends up being bad, but it's a good direction
@ZlewikkTV I agree, I'm looking forwards to the economic / resource warfare aspect. I just hope the game works and doesn't get sidelined like Imperator Rome
@@ZlewikkTV Basing this game around the systems from two games generally considered as "failures" while going away from the mechanics of one of the best-selling of their games goes well beyond "very risky." We should be saying alot more of "just like in EU4" instead of "just like in Imperator." It seems odd to take a bunch of mechanics from a game that was actually abandoned for several years while de-emphasizing the game that gets consistent DLC for 11 years.
@@Turamwdd when I say 'like Imperator' I'm talking on Imperator in current state, where it is my 2nd favourite PDX game and is highly appreciated by majority of the people experiencing it. Take a look at its recent reviews or concurrent players increase.
I also never heard anyone claiming eu3 was a failure. Whenever I hear from people that have memory of playing it have good memories (including me). It was really a decent game for it's time (2007???)
@@Turamwddits picking the best mechanics from all the previous games and mods (looking at you, meiou&t)
I really dislike the levy system in Imperator. It is so painful and boring to play early game when your only options as a small country is a super limited amount of levies and just saving up for a mercenary stack. And also you can't choose the types of units in your levies, which is stupid. I like the individual flexibility of EU4's system where you can build as many troops as your country can afford in terms of money and manpower, and you can choose the unit make-up of your armies. You have so much power as a small country to even the odds in EU4, while in EU5 it seems like it is limiting this and becoming more deterministic and realistic. Kind of disappointing that they are making such a big change like this away from EU4 to an inferior system that is already in other pdx games. This being said, it could still be fine depending on how they specifically implement the changes.
The fact that someone can beat ming as theodoro on very hard difficulty within the first 10 years of eu4 should demonstrate how broken eu4's military system is. I get that the ability to do this can be fun, but i really dont think this should be possible at all.
@@skanderbeg152IT isn't about military itself, just how broken ai really is
@@magix7790 alright, maybe there is some credence given how well skanderbeg fought against the ottomans. But think the issue is only partially bad ai
@skanderbeg152 lets agree to disagree. I personally prefer eu4 combat over ck3 if you can compare it because its a terrible joke, you need to remember that the main issue is incompetency in paradox resulting into creating new exploits to repair older, for example i like more new mercenaries over older one (times when you can recruit separately each 1k) because its more balanced. Still every aspects is better than teleporting armies in ck3 by disbanding army and immediately raise in recruit points. I want to see some of "complex" mechanics over simplistics like in ck3.
@@magix7790 sure. But in ck3 there arent really teleporting armies, since when you disband there is a dynamic cool down to when you can raise levies again, which represents the time it takes for them to return home. Then when you raise them it takes time for everyone to arrive. There isnt much more complexity because i imagine that levies just arent very complex.
This is not an Eu game anymore. This is more like a ck game,a late one
Nah, it was said very clearly that the system will evolve from levies based to standing army based as the game goes, which with regiment side changes is a much better system than EU4 or CK have for a game that spawns between 1337 and 1820ish
Doesn't feel like EU. I really hope the system is competent because all the micro of this seems like a pain. I hope occupied territory counts as friendly and let's you reinforce and I really don't want to micro supplies for my armies
Tf do u want them to do then? not innovate cuz you can't let go of nostalgia
Idk... this game is gonna suck
why so state ur reasons
Because it's too complicated for your "more=better" brain processes?