Paradox Studio Thread

[Blackstar]

Zlewikk made a very informative 40 minute long video about the EU5 AI:

• Spoiler: Very long summary

  • In relation to the first timelapse that was posted. Having to constantly fight civil wars was the AI's biggest bottleneck in that build. The AI is fine with expanding for the first 2 centuries but after that it basically stops in Europe.
  • Second timelapse that was on the newer Oct 22 patch: It fixed the AI's issue with civil wars giving them more resources to expand, civil wars still occur but aren't as devastating to the AI as before, AI was able to expand a bit more but once again in Europe they would unite their home regions in the first centuries then stop expanding.
    
    Is the AI not expanding because it's dogshit or because it's so good that it stalemates?
  • Talks about how 2 months ago he hated playing the lategame because of it being a micro hell thanks to AI building forts everywhere, and that the AI can still see everything and would be able to attack him very easily destroying his entire armies. Battles were very fast so there wouldn't be time to reinforce and he would have to reload. The issue that was previously posted here about where the AI wouldn't colonize the new world was actually because AI countries were trying to colonise each other instead.
  • In a patch after that one, the AI was more aggressive, with coalitions almost instantly declaring war making them a big challenge if you got really big ones. Once again the faster battles resulted in his armies being raped and requiring a reload
  • Next patch introduced possibility of 0% maintenance on sliders, the meta became setting armies to siege everything down at the start of the war, was a terrible experience. This patch fixed colonization. It starts kicking off only in the late 1500s/early 1600s and before that there aren't many colonies.
  • Playing as Sweden the AI kept kicking his ass in wars. Just because they aren't expanding much doesn't mean they are weak since they're building up instead.
  • Early October: Florence AAR. Small tags can be very challenging because of lacking large armies making them easy to wipe out and lacking power to be able to acquire good alliances. But then when it game to mid-size tags in Italy it became much more challenging, with him needing to sweat to take them on. Fort maintenance slider was given a minimum of 50%. Levies now take 20-30 years to fully recover after being wiped
  • October 16 patch, the one the first timelapse was on. It will be the one his Oct 31st video as the Ottomans was played on. The levy recovery is even slower now. Unifying Anatolia is ok but after that expanding into the Balkans is challenging. Sieging Constantinople took 1500 days, Armenian tags are difficult to fight because of a vassal swarm. The issue with expansion into Balkans is that it generates antagonism with the Balkans, Ruthenia, Russia, Hungary, and Naples. One thing the AI doesn't leverage is improving relations to decrease antagonism gain.
    
    
  • Confirms the issue of hugboxes, massive alliance chains of AI nations that were difficult to break apart for him, says that it's probably impossible for the current AI to have done.
  • Explanation for the Ottomans not expanding into the Middle East: Mamluks are the strongest nation in Europe and very stable, on par with France. Very challenging to fight as the Ottomans owning all of Anatolia and half of the Balkans because of them having a massive levy swarm. Standing armies have also been nerfed so it's even more difficult for him to do. Therefore also impossible for the AI.
  • His conclusion for this segment: Constant civil wars slowed down the AI expansion up to Oct 22 patch, now fixed. Huge alliance chains thanks to large diplo capacity even for mid-sized states prevents the AI from expanding. This is the one of the dev's current priorities. He did 2 observer games on this patch:
    
    Europe in 1822
  • AI is more opportunistic when it comes to grabbing random pieces of land. Morocco owning small bits of Iberia, Bohemia snaking into Savoy. Once again AI expands well in the first 2 centuries.
  • Poland didn't expand much but was very tall, 11 million pops (1 million at start), 250k manpower, 10k base tax (says that it's a huge amount, that in his Ottomans campaign had 1.5k in 1540 and was 2nd highest in it), 8k income, 5k balance, 70k regular army. They seem small but are super tall. Says that 5 mid-sized AIs will be more of a challenge than 1 larger AI thanks to the smaller ones having more control over their lands. This Poland was allied to Hungary, Bohemia, Lithuania, Upper Bavaria, and Brandenburg.
  • France: 33 million pops, 1.1 million manpower, 58k ducats in the bank, 18k base tax. 12k income, 3k balance, 91k regular army. Allied to Bohemia, Ottomans, Trier. Colonised Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, and North Canada.
  • Great Britain had 90 million pops, 1.3 million manpower, 100k in bank, 18k base tax, 140k regular army, allied with Bohemia, Ottomans, and Rev. France.
  • Ottomans: Seem fucked up but had 10 million pops, 600k manpower, 126k in bank, 7k base tax. 5k income, 46k regular army size.
  • Muscovy: 11 million, 2k base tax
  • Castille: 25 million pops, #2 great power, 25k base tax thanks to colonies
  • Asia bordergores way harder than Europe, China keeps uniting and exploding into a shit ton of tags
  • Africa gets united more

  [*]
  2nd observer run:
  

  • Africa and Asia like before
  • Europe once again has 200 years of expansion before stalemating from alliance chains
  • Ottomans blocked by the Eretnids, which were allied to Mamluks
  • All of Russia and Ruthenia allied together

  [*]Final section of the Video:
  

  • The AI is challenging and very aggressive to the player. It can still be exploited on some fronts.
  • Mentions that the pace of battles has been slowed down in the newer patch making them easier since you are now able to reinforce
  • In new patch war score cost modifiers limited to make players and AI struggle more with conquering and controlling lands.
  • AI should focus on techs that expand regiment size, by rushing it you can double your army size while having the same number of regiments. It should also prioritise fort techs. Doubling regiment sizes allows you to easily rush lower tech forts.
  • AI should embrace standing armies faster since it is very rich thanks to playing tall.
  • He thinks that small tags should be able to get more alliances, mid-sized tags should be able to get less.
  • AI is really good at naval invasions but does it with transport-only fleets, allowing their entire levies to get wiped.
  • Summarises that the AI should be able to expand better past 1550, before that it is fine, but that the game doesn't get less fun, only more challenging. This would allow for bigger countries that have less control over their land, and less hugboxes.
  • Says that paradox is very aware of the criticism of this

  [*]
  
  tl;dr:
• The AI isn't retarded at all, in fact it is very good at warfare and can play tall very well.
• In older patches the AI was getting raped by civil wars, this has been fixed.
• The big issue is as was previously speculated that after 200 years the countries start forming massive alliance chains forming stalemates preventing expansion
• The reason for the Ottomans remaining small is because Mamluks are the most OP nation in Europe on par with France, having massive levy hordes that are impossible for AI Ottomans to take on. Ottoman expansion into the Balkans generates antagonism with all of the Balkans, Naples, Hungary, and the entire Orthodox world. In EU5 coalitions attack almost instantly.
• Warfare against the AI can be very challenging, battles were so fast that there would be no time to reinforce if attacked leading to often getting stack wiped, a newer patch has made them last longer to remedy this
• Mentions that losing your levies can be really really bad because now it can take over 30 years for them to fully recover
• Standing armies aren't as OP as before where you could wipe out levy armies 4x the size of yours.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Standing armies should only really be powerful towards the late game. And the levies thing is pretty good cause the pop system means your manpower actually comes from your provinces and not from the aether, meaning you want them alive so they can go back to planting crops ans working RGOs after the war.

 

[Sooty Soot]

Standing armies should only really be powerful towards the late game. And the levies thing is pretty good cause the pop system means your manpower actually comes from your provinces and not from the aether, meaning you want them alive so they can go back to planting crops ans working RGOs after the war.

Levies in EU5 are kinda weird when looking at it from a CK2 perspective, since buildings in CK2 that provide levies seem to imply that they're full time soldiers, the militia barracks & keep buildings especially. On a side note, I really hope a CK2 to EU5 converter is made instead of just having a CK3 version, I am not going to subject myself to the glorified incest simulator that is CK3.

 

[hawkisnight]

Standing armies should only really be powerful towards the late game. And the levies thing is pretty good cause the pop system means your manpower actually comes from your provinces and not from the aether, meaning you want them alive so they can go back to planting crops ans working RGOs after the war.

Doesn't professional army come from your pops too? Being a soldier is a job for the pops where levies are summoned from their regular job to serve.
Professional army should outclass levies but maybe not 1:4.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Everything I've heard is good. Even the Ottomans being checked in the Balkans by diplomacy - the whole reason they were able to expand was because of Christian infighting, from the Kantakouzenos using them as mercenaries in the Byzantine civil war (further aided by an earthquake destroying the fortress of Gallipoli), followed by the Serbian and Bulgarian empires devolving into warlordism, to finally the Serbians not aiding the Hungarians at Second Kosovo.

 

[LovisXVI]

Doesn't professional army come from your pops too? Being a soldier is a job for the pops where levies are summoned from their regular job to serve.
Professional army should outclass levies but maybe not 1:4.

Yes, but soldiers just make manpower, whereas levies make food, goods, and staff buildings. Losing a soldier just means some peasant has to upgrade into that slot.

 

[God of Nothing]

Levies in EU5 are kinda weird when looking at it from a CK2 perspective, since buildings in CK2 that provide levies seem to imply that they're full time soldiers, the militia barracks & keep buildings especially. On a side note, I really hope a CK2 to EU5 converter is made instead of just having a CK3 version, I am not going to subject myself to the glorified incest simulator that is CK3.

It's historically accurate that most of a lord's forces were paid fighting men. Knights and proto-knights. Retinues are more highly trained professionals. CK3 changing it all to just levies was a massive downgrade. Having the majority of your force be a bunch of peasants with a small number of actual troops is a horribly stupid mistake that simplifies combat by a massive margin.

 

[Computer God Autism]

It's historically accurate that most of a lord's forces were paid fighting men. Knights and proto-knights. Retinues are more highly trained professionals. CK3 changing it all to just levies was a massive downgrade. Having the majority of your force be a bunch of peasants with a small number of actual troops is a horribly stupid mistake that simplifies combat by a massive margin.

*in western European feudalism

Levy armies were still the norm throughout most of the world throughout the European medieval ages, it's actually quite remarkable how effective European retainer armies were tactically when paired against them.

 

[LovisXVI]

It's historically accurate that most of a lord's forces were paid fighting men. Knights and proto-knights. Retinues are more highly trained professionals. CK3 changing it all to just levies was a massive downgrade. Having the majority of your force be a bunch of peasants with a small number of actual troops is a horribly stupid mistake that simplifies combat by a massive margin.

Well, it has to do with what is defined as a levy for game purposes, because depending on the game, they are either conscripted peasants, land holders serving their feudal dues in the form of military service, or citizen soldiers raised for campaign (CK3, CK2/EU5, Imperator, respectively). I wish that CK3 did more interesting things with levies, where there was a trade-off for the process of transition from feudal due-based armies to semi-professional and professional retinues, something that CK2 manages to do even worse somehow.

 

[God of Nothing]

*in western European feudalism

Levy armies were still the norm throughout most of the world throughout the European medieval ages, it's actually quite remarkable how effective European retainer armies were tactically when paired against them.

right
i keep forgetting how primitive and retarded everywhere not western europe was
i still find it funny how paradox made an aztec invasion dlc where they were the advanced ones and an endless dick-sucking china one where the only fun bit is invading them

 

[LovisXVI]

right
i keep forgetting how primitive and retarded everywhere not western europe was
i still find it funny how paradox made an aztec invasion dlc where they were the advanced ones and an endless dick-sucking china one where the only fun bit is invading them

It is looking to be equally silly in AUH because aside from gunpowder (which is a serious boon), China was not militarily advanced, in part due to cultural aversions to warfare as a noble or laudable career and lifestyle. The advancements they had were largely in administration and agriculture.

 

[Blackstar]

I just thought of something that I have no idea if it is actually present in the game. Mountains should provide a control penalty when it is being calculated, e.g. if France conquers land in Iberia it should be harder to control directly through land connection because of the Pyrenees being in the way.

 

[A random street in Duluth]

, China was not militarily advanced,

Wrong. China was extremely advanced in all forms of warfare, they had that shit figured out to a science during each of their civil war phases, see Sun Tzu or how sophisticated their weaponry was. They just had such a comfortable equilibrium state in their little corner of the world that they just had no impetus to really use it on anyone, so they kept sliding back into the same stagnation, as it did not really even matter, most of the time. They conquered Vietnam several times during their history and failed to hold it for long each time, but in the end did not matter as it was within their cultural sphere, paid tribute to them and were absolutely no threat to China. Same with the Korean peninsula. All the other avenues of expansion were either impassable mountains, deserts, steppe, jungle or tundra with shitholes not even worth conquering and garrisoning, so they always quickly turned inward each time. There were no great rivals or threats spurring them into expansionism. Even their naval tech suffered from the same, they simply had no impetus to go around and explore the world, like the Europeans did, they produced practically everything under the sun possible, so they had no need for massive trade networks. The Ming era saw some gigantic, technologically ships and fleets built with proto-assembly line techniques, which went around visiting India and explored around, but it turned out to be a massive loss with zero practical benefit, as there were no cargo worth hauling home. Of course, this later came to bite them in the ass, but its still intensely hilarious how China basically conquered what was administratively and economically feasible to govern at that level of technology right away and just sat there cycling through civil wars and culturally assimilating its would be conquerors for thousands of years.


Also. CK3 still sucks, Victoria 3 still sucks, Stellaris still sucks and HoI4 is kept alive by its autistic modders, so I have zero hope for EU5 being good, even after years and years of patching and DLC. They have their core customer base of redditors excited about looking "smart" playing "smart" games which are essentially map painting blobbing, with bells and whistlers to "express themselves" by roleplaying in stupid sandboxes, and those are the ones who will buy all the stupid DLC, so they don't really have to give a shit about people who like strategy or history. They know they have no real competitor, so where the fuck they would even go? They are even aware of modders fixing up their shit for free, so they don't even have to really finish them.

 

[God of Nothing]

see Sun Tzu

you fell for the meme

The Chinese were one of the most conquered and raped people in history.

Spoiler

 

[A random street in Duluth]

you fell for the meme

I don't how to put it respectfully, but 4chan memes are not a good source of knowledge on history.

 

[God of Nothing]

I don't how to put it respectfully, but 4chan memes are not a good source of knowledge on history.

says the guy sourcing someone who doesn't even exist from a fucking BC time for their military in the middle ages

 

[WarrenZHarding]

I am not going to subject myself to the glorified incest simulator that is CK3.

But what if its CHINESE incest?

 

[Computer God Autism]

China was extremely advanced in all forms of warfare,

Same with the Korean peninsula.

The Ming era saw some gigantic, technologically ships and fleets built with proto-assembly line techniques,

The Ming couldn't even force the Toyotomi out of Korea with conventional warfare and relied almost exclusively on the Korean navy because they banned private maritime trade and travel.

 

[LovisXVI]

Wrong. China was extremely advanced in all forms of warfare, they had that shit figured out to a science during each of their civil war phases, see Sun Tzu or how sophisticated their weaponry was. They just had such a comfortable equilibrium state in their little corner of the world that they just had no impetus to really use it on anyone, so they kept sliding back into the same stagnation, as it did not really even matter, most of the time. They conquered Vietnam several times during their history and failed to hold it for long each time, but in the end did not matter as it was within their cultural sphere, paid tribute to them and were absolutely no threat to China. Same with the Korean peninsula. All the other avenues of expansion were either impassable mountains, deserts, steppe, jungle or tundra with shitholes not even worth conquering and garrisoning, so they always quickly turned inward each time. There were no great rivals or threats spurring them into expansionism. Even their naval tech suffered from the same, they simply had no impetus to go around and explore the world, like the Europeans did, they produced practically everything under the sun possible, so they had no need for massive trade networks. The Ming era saw some gigantic, technologically ships and fleets built with proto-assembly line techniques, which went around visiting India and explored around, but it turned out to be a massive loss with zero practical benefit, as there were no cargo worth hauling home. Of course, this later came to bite them in the ass, but its still intensely hilarious how China basically conquered what was administratively and economically feasible to govern at that level of technology right away and just sat there cycling through civil wars and culturally assimilating its would be conquerors for thousands of years.

You are just describing the various reasons they weren't militarily advanced, having no cultural or material impetus. All the things you are describing are in other areas which can contribute to a military, aren't military advancements like the tercio or maniple/cohort were. Also, the Venetian arsenal had early industrial style manufacture of ships at the same time. Size of ship doesn't even indicate advancement, just the wealth of the manufacturer, or the polyremes of the Hellenistic age would have indicated a great deal of maritime advancement. What determines advancement is complexity and new abilities, which the carrack, capable of safe travel over deep oceans, was a far better example of.

 

[Ancient Pioneer]

Sun Tzu isn't that impressive, its just vague philosophical stuff regarding the military and its borderline useless "the clever fighter wins without fighting".... ok? How exactly does one "win without fighting" for the rest of the dunces in the class? The Strategikon, Taktika, and particularly Praecepta Militaria are field operations and tactical manuals which demonstrate all the basic bitch stuff outlined in Sun Tzu but in concrete demonstrable examples. The Praecepta Militaria is probably the book for understanding how Medieval warfare worked and it was formulated at the behest of one of, if not the greatest general Byzantium ever had: Nikephorus II Phocas.