i dont mean to be so off topic but does anybody know of a method to log back into an Instagram account..? I was stupid forgot my password. I would love any tips you can give me.
If you are a true eu4 nerd the content of this video should already be known to you. Except maybe the math since that's not really necessary to be on top of.
TheRealXartaX In all honesty the beauty of this game is playing hundreds of hours and still learning new things. Praise Reman for teaching us the new and refining the old.
It's a good video. He forgets to mention prestige impact on battles though, and army tradition. Those are more important than professionalism IMO (prof. for individual troops go away so quickly). Can't remember if power projection does anything? It's just mana and admin/diplo boons iirc I also miss terrain width being mentioned but it's kinda never thought of either way ("nobody" micros that hard - can be very useful in instances in hard playthroughs though) I also miss elaboration on stackwiping. I only have my own experience to go with, but from that experience, stackwiping is calculated parallel to morale damage over time. E.g. if you have (arbitrary number here) 90% more morale than the enemy before a new month starts, you'll stackwipe them. Well all I know is that, for instance, when you're _trying_ to stackwipe some army - but your army is too slow/too little maneuver - you'll never be able too because a new month starts (regaining morale) and you do too little comparatively morale damage overall in the whole battle (all troops). Armies of ANY size will be stackwipes if they do NOT get time to regain ANY morale after a defeat, and end their movement on ANY size of enemy army. Of course, if they outnumber you 10 to 1 and have even 1% morale, they'll stackwipe you instead (10/1 is insta-stackwipe)
Whops sorry, I meant to elaborate; I'm pretty sure a (again arbitrary number, just an example) 120% morale army can wipe something a 100% morale army _can not_ , under the exact same circumstances. Thus making stackwipes relative to morale boosts (yours and enemy's total compared to each other) and _not just damage done_ , offensively. Feel free to prove me wrong or help me learn more!! ;)
A tangent on this topic, at 8:42 you can see that Mil Tech 6 vs 5 gives an overwhelming advantage. This my friends, is what make Qing runs possible entirely by yourself. Add in other Horde bonuses and you will see that Ming troops basically melt before you with 2000-3000 damage each day. This is often not apparent for newer players or those who haven't tried hordes before whose normal reaction would be "how the hell is that even possible". I know I did, until I tried it at last. It was a pleasant experience.
Just a couple of corrections. First, it's actually better to fight Ming at tech 4 vs 3 than 6 vs 5 because 1) Ming gets new troops at 5 and hordes do not, which partially offsets the advantage, and 2) Reman's chart only included the casualties and not the morale damage (which tech 4 gives and tech 6 does not), which is very helpful for stackwipes. Second, Ming has easier time reaching tech 6 than tech 4 (due to having more time to catch up), so your opportunity window at tech 6 will be smaller.
Andriy Fadyeyenko Well I kinda suspected that's the case but most player can't play fast enough to be able to reach 300 dev before Ming reach tech 4. Or do you not wait for that and just declare as soon as you form Manchu?
declare war in 1450 (after forming Manchu and eating Korchin+Buryatia). You should have like 30k banners (or close to). Ming doesn't get tech 4 until about 1453, by which point you'll have smashed his army to bits.
an alternative strategy is to eat Korea first to reach 300 dev, but then you'll lose your tech advantage, so imo it's better to attack Ming before Korea
I don't normally do this but I felt the need to stop and say that your videos are absolutely fantastic for streamlining the process for learning this game. You're helping a lot of new players to deepen their understanding of a game with mechanics that are fairly impenetrable for a casual audience, and for that I salute you. Keep up the brilliant work!
well, actually, these videos are mustsee for 99% players. I'm playing a lot in MP and most players (even with 1k+ hours) don't know a thing about how combat actually works.
Man, I was getting crushed in combat in my firsts games even having a lot more troops and ideas that my oponent. Then I saw this video and I realised I was 4 tech levels behind in combat. Turns out that spending militaru points to delay revolts and getting ideas done is a waste of points
I would say it takes about 100-150 h to understand the basic game, but it is so much fun to play. Everygame is another expierience, you can play everytime another country or try the last one again in another way. AND there are a lot of hard achievments to get
I have almost 2k hours into the game and I encourage everyone who likes strategy games to play eu4. Eu4 is unique to other strategy games (Unless its a paradox game, but if you have played a paradox you should already want to play eu4). The only issue I have with Eu4 is the fact that its based off a board game(risk) and there is a lot of rng in the game that is really frustrating.
Wow! Kudos to you. This is like a masters seminar in the game. I am just so impressed and grateful that you share your expertise in such an eloquent and perspicacious manner!!!
I mean, I agree in principle on cavalry, but that is usually assuming a best case scenario for infantry based armies and the state of your manpower. Using cavalry is basically converting money into a morale bonus until most armies field full width cannons (which is way later than tech 16), and that morale bonus usually ends up equating to a manpower bonus. If you aren't keeping enough of a war chest around to afford cavalry, obviously you ditch them asap, but in that instance you are probably ditching your cav even before tech 16, so the point is moot.
Yeah having a lot of morale can screw you. I once had massive morale and what happened was that one of my condottieri armies I wasn't paying attention to fought until there were only three of them left, yes they fought until there were three men left standing and didn't break. Well, they broke when those last 3 men died but they stood against an army that was 2-3 times their size and refused to retreat or wipe until the very last man, must have been one hell of a last stand.
at 11:00 . Perhaps it is just me, but as long as my economy allows it, Personally sticking with just a single piece of Artillery is less efficient than going to full on 3 or 4. The reason being that while Cannons at this point on the game are not as good as in late game, however the extra firepower from the backrow can help immensely. Not to mention it helps your Manpower to last longer as an extra +2 to your sieges can speed them up so you take less losses from attrition which can be quite a drain if you are a smaller nation or in general less manpower to play with.
I personally always try to get 10 cannons in each of my stacks as quickly as possible. They make sieges so fast and they save you much manpower. My Army composition stays 10/4/10 until the next fort level and I just keep the minimum number of cannons in my stacks the get the max bonus(Always keeping my inf at the same number). I never get rid of cav because they just do so much damage; one benefit that cav have that Reman never mentioned is that cav hit more units with their damage. They are never "bad". But/ you don't want to flood your composition with them late game.
The thing is, having the extra siege bonus for only one cannon is actually quite a bargain. You rarely find yourself in a situation where your finances let you comfortably field three more cannons for the additional siege bonus and yet not being able to spare two more, and two more, and two more for the full +5 on lvl 2 forts. At this stage of the game though, the real downer is the supply limit. If the overall terrain can only support 20 or so units, a 16/4 force will usually be more efficient than a 12/4/4 one since most of the damage occurs during the shock phase.
Rageface memeaholic - I guess you only play larger nations in the Europe? in ROTW, or heck as an OPM or other low development, small size nation it can be quite hard to afford your force limit for example.
Could you do some testing to see what the impact of morale is like in 'messier' fights? Logically the messier a fight is (multiple army stacks joining a fight at different times) the more important morale would be, especially in the early game, as units would rout at different times leaving the remaining units outnumbered. This kind of messy fight is pretty common especially when you have allies in the war
I just picked this game up last month and have had to do a lot of learning to succeed. I hope at some point in this series you talk about how to win wars against more numerous enemies as currently all I can manage is to start as a large nation and go quantity ideas in order to win battles with a sheer numbers advantage.
Hello Reman, another good guide here! But I think you lack some important info here: 1) About what affects battles. Prestige moves your morale from -10% to +10% (which is a lot). Army traditions can give you +25% morale. 2) About how to compare morale, discipline, combat ability and +fire/shock attack/defence modifiers. Usually I compare them as 5% discipline = 20% combat ability = 10% morale, but I think you will be interested in running proper tests. It is very important to know to be able to make right decisions in game. 3) No words about unit pips? =\
I usually see the way you talk about morale bonuses (it only makes a difference if you cross one of the three thresholds) as half the story. It's true that it only truly matters relative to those three thresholds, but crossing one of them matters a LOT. An early stack wipe can sometimes make the whole difference in winning or losing a war. I mean, especially in early wars it could easily be over half of either your or your opponent's manpower, massive war exhaustion, a ton of money, and free reign for the victor to siege the loser for quite a while. Similarly, winning or losing a battle can easily mean a year of not having to siege down a fort (either because you had to restart the siege or unsiege it after your opponent won the siege), and if your morale is so much worse than your opponent's that this is the key reason you lost the siege in the first place, history will probably repeat itself. So, yes, morale bonuses only matter in certain cases, but those cases are so important that they're worth some pretty major consideration.
Re: 6:00 I''m a ~12 H playtime player here and my answer was 'pushing the pay your troops slider to the right'. I look forward to forgetting I ever made such mistakes. 'WHY AREN'T YOU MOVING??? YOU USELES- oh wait. Oh. Oh crap. My bad guys.'
Reman! I love your idea of the War Academy, how about a Naval Acadamy? I feel like Naval battles and Admirals is so confusing, and I haven't really found a single tutorial/video on it! Big ups for what you doing here man like I knew all of these things from previous videos/other channels, but not at all to what extent they are important or how they interact with each other.
Also, Reman, your '1 tech advantage' table is kinda wrong. 13 and 16 techs are VERY important in the game, and newbies who will watch your table will think these techs are garbage just because you fought with 16/4 armies (zero cannons). You should have made additional mini-table for 10-13-16 techs comparing armies with and without cannons.
Apologies in advance for spelling errors.Dear Reman, at 8:00 in this video, you list improvements army units recieve as a consequence of increased military tech. These percentages are high indeed! However, at the start of the game (1444), your tactics increase from 0.25 to 0.5 (tech 4). Thats double! Or, a 100% increase. No idea group gives you 100% more military tactics. Late in the game, the 0.25 increase you get from tech 30, will have a much lower corresponding persentage increase. So my question is: Do you still think spending 1800 MIL on tech is much stronger than spending 1800 MIL on ideas, in a similar way, around that stage of the game? I really enjoy your EUIV videos, I hope you never run out of interesting topics to help me improve my game!Regards,Jeremy
Great vid as always! Have you considered making a milan/austia-esque guide for more countries? Those are my favorites and seeing you do one for England, Sweden or Prussia would be really great!
What I often do is accumulate as many points as I can, instead of rushing tech. This way, if I am attacked, I can easily tech up to my neighbours tech with some nice discounts (time + ideas), or even tech it further, and so his planned advantage goes to waste, and if I'm not, I can up my ideas while always keeping enough points saved to tech up to my neighbours tech eventually. This means I get all the nice tech cost reductions from having ideas, I have the ideas themselves, I don't pay the rushed price, and I do not tend to lag behind if I don't fuck up. I only play multiplayer, though, and I have had moments where I have massively fucked up by developing or getting an idea when I shouldn't have, leaving my neighbour with almost three more military technologies than I did. Those are complete absurd and risky bets, buuuut, it has gone fine for me so far. Also, many thanks for all these tutorials. 2k hours and still, you always teach me some new things.
I would say it is generally okay to be one tech behind and waiting for discounts, but any more would be suicide, especially in competitive multiplayer. Small nations also have the problem that they can't hide their troops till they get morale if the tech has a unit type upgrade.
Another way to do it is calculate how much MP you would get by the time you lose the ahead of time tech bonus (when you upgrade you get 140% or so penalty so if you get 400 MP in 5 years you could get the next idea and then start saving for the next tech and you'll never fall behind in either.
Hey man, I just found your channel and noticed you have no playlists like HOI4, EU4...so could you make them? As far as I concluded your channel is mostly about educating on paradox games so playlists would help a lot
"Point was not to give Prussia magic button for manpower". Uh...did they miss Prussia's government giving +3 to leader mil? They're the ONLY country for which that magic button still exists. 250 Mil for 2 years of manpower isn't too bad if you're sitting on loads of mil mana. Anyways, you might still use professionalism if your country is seriously suffering for cash and cant afford mercs.
i think you need to do one on attack/defense pips and attack/defense sides of the battles. Also how important it is to know which unit types you are fighting under what conditions. Some battles outcome can be completely changed by who attacks who.
I've been reading the euiv Combat Wiki: the Moral damage is not defined by your max Moral, its defined by the attackers max moral ---> If your moral your is bigger then enemy one, he will be much faster below 50% where he deals less damage
Regarding early-game fire generals, it would be nice to see a mathematical breakdown of the "first kill" advantage. Even though your fire modifiers are low, getting more kills in the fire phase means that your enemy has fewer troops in the shock phase to hit you back. It didn't seem like your math took that into account, though of course a 6 shock will still beat a 6 fire early on.
Good video, but I would say the tech vs idea thing was very misleading. You only talked about the first levels where tech give massive bonuses. At later stages ideas can be better than tech
as a rich nation when you get artillary i have to say, you should rush 1 or 2 10 stacks of canons just for the sieges, if i have 100 force limit at that point (a good run or big nation) i have 20 canons by themselves sieging forts, with the rest of my army protecting them or attacking the enemy
8:45~ goes now into my internal head estimates and decision making for when you're behind in mil tech AND you haven't embraced the institution. It gonna hurt monarch pointwise, but advancing a mil idea over a mil tech because of a tech cost modifier isn't gonna be worth it most of the time. maybe if you're finishing off quality at tech 17 with a massive malus to tech cost, which you shouldn't have in the first place at that stage of the game.
I just think it's a pity that cavalry becomes useless. It could and historically did harass the artillery by bypassing the infantry lines. Perhaps it could attack the backline from backline.
Around 7 minutes in you mention how important techs are. I agree. But you're pretty adamant and don't mention exceptions! For instance, if I recall correctly, tech 17 or so gives you + supply limit and cavalry flanking range. That's practically *NO* difference _at all_ if your opponent aren't fielding cav, and even then, it's probably quite neligible. It's just an example I could remember, but I just wanted to bring that up. Thanks for some great videos!
This is a great guide and helps not only new players to the game about the mechanics. My question however is at what cavalry advantage people should consider to keep them in their army? Playing as Poland/Lithuania or any horde give crazy boni in infantry cavalry ratio and an immense additional combat ability. With the fire phase being the first, it appears to be odd using cavalry but nations like Poland can really make the difference in battle during the shock phase in the late game.
Well, I found professionalism thing pretty fun for role-playing, such as Prussia with 100 professionalism, 90+ army traditions and... 0 recruits(at least in early-midgame). IMHO, especially after Reman's breakdown, I find professionalism to problematic to have, not even talking about maintaining it.
I'm not that mathy and not that pro either, but I disagree about professionalism in drilling. I always drill my armies, and as a major power, I can often find myself drilling an extra army even during a war to keep them always fresh (think of it as France, Castile>Spain, etc). Not to mention that the manpower pool you can get is a real nice cushion to fall on if you end up losing a war. I find that essentially whoever's got more professionalism saved up, can win the protracted war / can last longer without going too heavy on the mercs. Not to mention, doesn't it give siege ability which is quite handy too? And reduce or increase your casualties? I mean it's just nice to have.
i Have a question, when i myself tried to figure out the combat system using custom nations, i found that a 40stack of infantry had the possibility to beat a 40stack of infantry and cannons, cause when the first line of infantry fell there was more bodies to go around, while the cannon stacks didnt kill enough, so their infantry lines routed and then the cannons got rekt. Why is this? Shouldnt cannons just have obliterated the infantry stacks even though they didnt have reinforcements because of the increased dmg per round? I must say this was done amatuerly, i didnt know how to freeze Dice rolls, but everything else was accounted for (tech, morale, terrain, generals etc)
This is generally the case, unless the infantry on the cannon side have a lot of defensive bonuses which allow them to stay in the fight longer. Cannons are useful most when you already have equal numbers of infantry, or you already have a full frontline flank. In that case, they can take a minor victory and turn it into a massive one. Ultimately, cannons allow you to increase your combat width, and in any case where combat width or flanking is the restricting factor, cannons make a huge difference.
they might make army proffesionalism worth it a bit more if the allow your backup manpower pool to also be trained. to a certain % of your total profesionalism.
I just recently started a Poland campaign and I was wondering, is Poland's 33% cavalry combat ability a strong enough bonus to make them worth keeping around or should I still ditch them for cannons?
The eastern nations (Poland, Hungary, and Lithuania) have good enough cavalry that they're a better option than infantry as long as you don't run into insufficient support, but they're just about the only ones.
How does that conflict with naval combat, would it be worth it to focus on diplo power over military power with maritime nations like venice? Hope to see naval combat academy soon. Love this channel!
Is there a guide for nations modifiers for morale? I notice European countries have elan? Which gives 15% more. I'm not sure if its only available as eu nations. I wish there's a video on all modifiers
Clarification on one bit of math. For the +% land fire/shock damage dealt/received, is that just another multiplier to base casualty rate or is it somehow interacting directly with the unit fire/shock technology multiplier?
so professionalism is basicly a waist of money now? at least in most games/ in the early game? can't we still get manpower from it every few years is needed? isn't it viable to just use it as a money to manpower converter? are the bonuses really not impactful enough to spend a lot of money on? am I really going to need to spam mercs again?
Mercs are a much better money to manpower converter. Also, if you don't sell the mercs after the war is done, you can keep building up army professionalism through events (and drilling if you're desperate).
I personally disagree with reman here, drilling CAN be good. Like all things EU4, all things are relative. I'm currently playing an extended timeline game where I can't expand quickly. Thanks to the Abbasid Caliphate to my north, I need to rely on vassalizing in no-cb wars to expand, followed by annexing the vassal to gain the cores needed for fabrication. My dominance over the Gulf of Aiden has given me staggering amounts of money, but Africa's low development and harsh attrition make quality far more important than quantity. By keeping my professionalism at max, I get a bonus to damage & siege ability dramatically lowering casualties in war. The movement speed bonus from drilling is NOT to be underestimated, the added mobility is the reason I keep by drilling on max for all units in peacetime. It's also why I entirely dumped mercs. armies with an average of 100% drill get a staggering 20% movement speed boost. Enemies I route don't have a chance to regen much morale, I can more effectively reinforce losing battles, target smaller armies, and when I'm routed I regen more morale & troops before they return. Combined with the amount of forts my nation has, bonuses to attrition, & high discipline my army is one of the strongest in the world and could win defensive wars with far stronger nations. This style would be sub-optimal at best in early or late game europe in the base game. But in my current scenario it is a godsend. Understanding how all the mechanics fit together and your current position is what separates good players from great ones.
Thanks for that, I was wondering in what scenarios drilling would be good cos I do like the mechanic of it even if it was "nerfed' and not a "always-good' idea. I think situational, niche mechanics are good for the game ... I don't think everything has to always be good for it to be a worthwhile addition to the game.
after some experimenting it's just there. an extra bonus you might use just like the new innovativeness system. it's there and it gives some bonuses but you can just ignore it
Reman, good overall analysis. However Professionalism is certainly not ignorable or weak! Mercs lower professionalism by a very small amount. 100 mercs only translate into -15% professionalism. For example if you would have 100% professionalism by Age of Absolutism, having 85% is still amazing. In one of my blobbing games I had over 200 mercs by 1650 with 100% absolutism. The key is simply not to dump points in development or lots of military ideas, roll generals constantly and as a bonus you can go do something awesome when your 30th one happens to be a 6/6.
with new 1.25 you get hald trade and production incom and armies costs are doubled and maintnence cost reductions halved id say mercing up is now a genuine last resort again unless you have a strong hold on an end node
To win the battle? probably the morale. To win on casualties? Probably the discipline. And as Reman mentioned, morale is only useful if it pushes you over one of the three cutoffs, but dealing more damage and taking less damage is always useful.
15% morale. If you had only 10% morale then it would be close (with morale having an advantage early and discipline having an advantage late), but 15% morale is too good.
I have an issue of my troops entering battle for moral to end up with only sixty percent when the battle actually began. It is infatuating, I don't know what causes it, and use my army maintenance is at the highest.
If you mean that your army has a sizeable part of the morale bar red while your enemy's is fully green, that means a morale difference. For instance, if your enemy has a morale of 5.0, but you only have 3.5, then you will get a partially red bar. The reason your enemy has more morale than you can mean that they have a higher military technology, have defensive ideas, have national ideas that boost morale (Castile/Spain and France are notorious in this regard) or have a much higher army tradition.
![[EU4] War Academy III: Military Idea Groups](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6OrR2TAXk6s/mqdefault.jpg)
![[EU4] War Academy III: Military Idea Groups](/img/tr.png)
![[EU4] War Academy I: Army Composition & Basic Combat](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O63oZQpKt_g/mqdefault.jpg)
![[EU4] Nation Spotlight: Austria - Marriage is Victory](/img/n.gif)
When is Paradox gonna nerf Red? Their ideas are insane
Snarfindorf -300th like
-1st reply
You win
Snarfindorf yeah and yellow needs a buff
ind et
i dont mean to be so off topic but does anybody know of a method to log back into an Instagram account..?
I was stupid forgot my password. I would love any tips you can give me.
Reman dishing out the knowledge that all us true eu4 nerds need. Many, many salutations.
If you are a true eu4 nerd the content of this video should already be known to you. Except maybe the math since that's not really necessary to be on top of.
TheRealXartaX In all honesty the beauty of this game is playing hundreds of hours and still learning new things. Praise Reman for teaching us the new and refining the old.
Yeah, I've pretty much knew everything in the video except the math. It is a great summary though.
It's a good video. He forgets to mention prestige impact on battles though, and army tradition. Those are more important than professionalism IMO (prof. for individual troops go away so quickly). Can't remember if power projection does anything? It's just mana and admin/diplo boons iirc
I also miss terrain width being mentioned but it's kinda never thought of either way ("nobody" micros that hard - can be very useful in instances in hard playthroughs though)
I also miss elaboration on stackwiping. I only have my own experience to go with, but from that experience, stackwiping is calculated parallel to morale damage over time. E.g. if you have (arbitrary number here) 90% more morale than the enemy before a new month starts, you'll stackwipe them.
Well all I know is that, for instance, when you're _trying_ to stackwipe some army - but your army is too slow/too little maneuver - you'll never be able too because a new month starts (regaining morale) and you do too little comparatively morale damage overall in the whole battle (all troops).
Armies of ANY size will be stackwipes if they do NOT get time to regain ANY morale after a defeat, and end their movement on ANY size of enemy army.
Of course, if they outnumber you 10 to 1 and have even 1% morale, they'll stackwipe you instead (10/1 is insta-stackwipe)
Whops sorry, I meant to elaborate; I'm pretty sure a (again arbitrary number, just an example) 120% morale army can wipe something a 100% morale army _can not_ , under the exact same circumstances.
Thus making stackwipes relative to morale boosts (yours and enemy's total compared to each other) and _not just damage done_ , offensively.
Feel free to prove me wrong or help me learn more!! ;)
Reman taken out of context: "The far left represents a crushing defeat"
UA-cam: Demonetization/Removal Incoming.
Well...He isn't wrong :p
"For fun, obliterating Protestants is an interesting challenge..."
...or that the Red Army is the strongest
Best paradox games channel
A tangent on this topic, at 8:42 you can see that Mil Tech 6 vs 5 gives an overwhelming advantage. This my friends, is what make Qing runs possible entirely by yourself. Add in other Horde bonuses and you will see that Ming troops basically melt before you with 2000-3000 damage each day. This is often not apparent for newer players or those who haven't tried hordes before whose normal reaction would be "how the hell is that even possible". I know I did, until I tried it at last. It was a pleasant experience.
Just a couple of corrections. First, it's actually better to fight Ming at tech 4 vs 3 than 6 vs 5 because 1) Ming gets new troops at 5 and hordes do not, which partially offsets the advantage, and 2) Reman's chart only included the casualties and not the morale damage (which tech 4 gives and tech 6 does not), which is very helpful for stackwipes. Second, Ming has easier time reaching tech 6 than tech 4 (due to having more time to catch up), so your opportunity window at tech 6 will be smaller.
Andriy Fadyeyenko Well I kinda suspected that's the case but most player can't play fast enough to be able to reach 300 dev before Ming reach tech 4. Or do you not wait for that and just declare as soon as you form Manchu?
declare war in 1450 (after forming Manchu and eating Korchin+Buryatia). You should have like 30k banners (or close to). Ming doesn't get tech 4 until about 1453, by which point you'll have smashed his army to bits.
an alternative strategy is to eat Korea first to reach 300 dev, but then you'll lose your tech advantage, so imo it's better to attack Ming before Korea
My 2nd campaign ever was Qing from jinzhou, I didn't know any of these, I just heard that horde cavalry strong and that carried me until I formed Qing
I don't normally do this but I felt the need to stop and say that your videos are absolutely fantastic for streamlining the process for learning this game. You're helping a lot of new players to deepen their understanding of a game with mechanics that are fairly impenetrable for a casual audience, and for that I salute you. Keep up the brilliant work!
well, actually, these videos are mustsee for 99% players. I'm playing a lot in MP and most players (even with 1k+ hours) don't know a thing about how combat actually works.
quite a lot is known by siu-king
No matter how many hours you have in Eu4, you can still learn something new every video
Man, I was getting crushed in combat in my firsts games even having a lot more troops and ideas that my oponent. Then I saw this video and I realised I was 4 tech levels behind in combat. Turns out that spending militaru points to delay revolts and getting ideas done is a waste of points
you only realized that after the video hmm
4 levels?
that's why I almost never take military ideas early on
The difference between you are able to have cannon first or not is huge
Paradox needs to buy this man a bottle of whatever it is he drinks.
I needed this in my life.. Will you do an Economy Academy as well?
Gummihals I belive he has already, but don't quote me on that
ALeKS He did one on trade, which granted is pretty difficult to learn and even harder to commit everything perfectly to memory.
Florrynomics are best economics... :D
João Beno Schreiner Junior it's quite funny that all the economy glitches are found by a dutch
That casualty bump at tech 6
0.0
Thats gotta make it the most important click in the entire game
I don't even play eu4. Why do I feel compelled to watch these videos!
You should. It looks hard (because it is) but with time you get used and the game is really really fun
I would say it takes about 100-150 h to understand the basic game, but it is so much fun to play. Everygame is another expierience, you can play everytime another country or try the last one again in another way.
AND there are a lot of hard achievments to get
I have almost 2k hours into the game and I encourage everyone who likes strategy games to play eu4. Eu4 is unique to other strategy games (Unless its a paradox game, but if you have played a paradox you should already want to play eu4). The only issue I have with Eu4 is the fact that its based off a board game(risk) and there is a lot of rng in the game that is really frustrating.
yea... and the DLC politics, you basically just can buy dlcs in sales, otherwise you have to be rich
Yeah, but that's what makes the game different in each playtrough. With time I learnt how to deal with RNG
Wow! Kudos to you. This is like a masters seminar in the game. I am just so impressed and grateful that you share your expertise in such an eloquent and perspicacious manner!!!
Thanks! Being a scientist myself, I love you scientific approach!
I am consistently impressed by the depth and detail in your videos, Reman. This is great content that helps break down these incredibly complex games!
Watching Reman's Paradox is like an advanced form of meditation
I mean, I agree in principle on cavalry, but that is usually assuming a best case scenario for infantry based armies and the state of your manpower. Using cavalry is basically converting money into a morale bonus until most armies field full width cannons (which is way later than tech 16), and that morale bonus usually ends up equating to a manpower bonus.
If you aren't keeping enough of a war chest around to afford cavalry, obviously you ditch them asap, but in that instance you are probably ditching your cav even before tech 16, so the point is moot.
Yes mate I've been binging these videos.
How to maximize troop quality:
Step 1) Pick nation with Prussian culture
Done!
>:(
culture shift to prussian as england then go Protestant, ez
Be a Poland Horde for cav.
I didn't know that Shock generals were better for early game. There's always something new to learn in EU4. I love your channel man
Yeah having a lot of morale can screw you. I once had massive morale and what happened was that one of my condottieri armies I wasn't paying attention to fought until there were only three of them left, yes they fought until there were three men left standing and didn't break. Well, they broke when those last 3 men died but they stood against an army that was 2-3 times their size and refused to retreat or wipe until the very last man, must have been one hell of a last stand.
I love how beautifully you explain everything. This video is not just informative but also inspired me to learn some math. Thanks :)
at 11:00 . Perhaps it is just me, but as long as my economy allows it, Personally sticking with just a single piece of Artillery is less efficient than going to full on 3 or 4.
The reason being that while Cannons at this point on the game are not as good as in late game, however the extra firepower from the backrow can help immensely.
Not to mention it helps your Manpower to last longer as an extra +2 to your sieges can speed them up so you take less losses from attrition which can be quite a drain if you are a smaller nation or in general less manpower to play with.
I personally always try to get 10 cannons in each of my stacks as quickly as possible. They make sieges so fast and they save you much manpower. My Army composition stays 10/4/10 until the next fort level and I just keep the minimum number of cannons in my stacks the get the max bonus(Always keeping my inf at the same number). I never get rid of cav because they just do so much damage; one benefit that cav have that Reman never mentioned is that cav hit more units with their damage. They are never "bad". But/ you don't want to flood your composition with them late game.
The thing is, having the extra siege bonus for only one cannon is actually quite a bargain. You rarely find yourself in a situation where your finances let you comfortably field three more cannons for the additional siege bonus and yet not being able to spare two more, and two more, and two more for the full +5 on lvl 2 forts.
At this stage of the game though, the real downer is the supply limit. If the overall terrain can only support 20 or so units, a 16/4 force will usually be more efficient than a 12/4/4 one since most of the damage occurs during the shock phase.
If your finances don't allow you to maintain more than 1 cannon I have no idea what country your playing but its poor as fuck.
Rageface memeaholic - I guess you only play larger nations in the Europe?
in ROTW, or heck as an OPM or other low development, small size nation it can be quite hard to afford your force limit for example.
Even small nations can afford more than 1 cannon
400 hours in and I still sucked at combat. Not anymore, thank you
how, cause this video didn't help me & i have over 1600 hours
You know after 1700 hours in the game i still find tutorials to teach me stuff and give me new ideas to not be as bad as before! Many thanks =D
I stop playing eu4 for a couple days or so, think to myself ah that'll be me for a while then i guess
*Reman brings out video*
LETSSSSSSSSSS PLAY EU4
As a new player (120 hours), these videos have been super helpful. Looking forward to future in depth videos, specifically, mercs.
These videos have been most helpful thanks.
You came out of nowhere but you still make the best eu4 content on youtube
Could you do some testing to see what the impact of morale is like in 'messier' fights? Logically the messier a fight is (multiple army stacks joining a fight at different times) the more important morale would be, especially in the early game, as units would rout at different times leaving the remaining units outnumbered. This kind of messy fight is pretty common especially when you have allies in the war
Excellent idea/request!
send 1 unit per day in, maximizes power, although its a pain to do everytime
This series is so great. It makes me like studing in the EU4 university.
I just picked this game up last month and have had to do a lot of learning to succeed. I hope at some point in this series you talk about how to win wars against more numerous enemies as currently all I can manage is to start as a large nation and go quantity ideas in order to win battles with a sheer numbers advantage.
Yellow is one of my favourite underdog nations these days. Their lack of technology lends them a real charm.
You saved my Theodoro run, thank you you miserable genius
Wow, going up to tech six gives you a massive boost. Going to have to start planning my wars around when I tech up to that level.
Hello Reman, another good guide here!
But I think you lack some important info here:
1) About what affects battles. Prestige moves your morale from -10% to +10% (which is a lot). Army traditions can give you +25% morale.
2) About how to compare morale, discipline, combat ability and +fire/shock attack/defence modifiers. Usually I compare them as 5% discipline = 20% combat ability = 10% morale, but I think you will be interested in running proper tests.
It is very important to know to be able to make right decisions in game.
3) No words about unit pips? =\
2.5% combat ability is absolute garbage compared to 5% discipline. 5% discipline is close to 10% combat ability across all troops.
Reman talked about unit pips in the first episode of this series.
Sry misspelled, ofc you right. i'm gonna correct my comment now.
He only told the basics. But there is more to be said when talking about 'Advanced Combat'.
20% infantry combat ability is about the the same as 5% discipline or 10% morale, but 20% combat ability across the board is definitely stronger.
As always @Reman model video. In depth, a lot of effort, to the point. +1 * 1000
I usually see the way you talk about morale bonuses (it only makes a difference if you cross one of the three thresholds) as half the story. It's true that it only truly matters relative to those three thresholds, but crossing one of them matters a LOT. An early stack wipe can sometimes make the whole difference in winning or losing a war. I mean, especially in early wars it could easily be over half of either your or your opponent's manpower, massive war exhaustion, a ton of money, and free reign for the victor to siege the loser for quite a while. Similarly, winning or losing a battle can easily mean a year of not having to siege down a fort (either because you had to restart the siege or unsiege it after your opponent won the siege), and if your morale is so much worse than your opponent's that this is the key reason you lost the siege in the first place, history will probably repeat itself.
So, yes, morale bonuses only matter in certain cases, but those cases are so important that they're worth some pretty major consideration.
This is outright fantastic. Well done.
And here I am, waiting for the day when Reman is going to diss our pretty stacks with cavalry
Re: 6:00 I''m a ~12 H playtime player here and my answer was 'pushing the pay your troops slider to the right'.
I look forward to forgetting I ever made such mistakes. 'WHY AREN'T YOU MOVING??? YOU USELES- oh wait. Oh. Oh crap. My bad guys.'
Amazing information in these series!! Thank you!
Please pitch two equal armies against each other, one having 10% morale bonus while other having 5% more discipline.
Love these vidoes Thnak you so much for making them - they are facinating.
Great video, been wanting these from you for a long time! You should be a professor.
can you make a video about retreating and what provences a army will retreat to
Reman! I love your idea of the War Academy, how about a Naval Acadamy? I feel like Naval battles and Admirals is so confusing, and I haven't really found a single tutorial/video on it!
Big ups for what you doing here man like I knew all of these things from previous videos/other channels, but not at all to what extent they are important or how they interact with each other.
Most important thing in naval battles is using right ships and Admiral maneuver
The most important thing in naval battles is not doing them unless invading the British isles.
@@alvarlindstrom2188 you need ships for many countries (Ottoman, Japan, Vijay, Portugal, italy, denmark, everyone in nord-africa ....)
Also, Reman, your '1 tech advantage' table is kinda wrong. 13 and 16 techs are VERY important in the game, and newbies who will watch your table will think these techs are garbage just because you fought with 16/4 armies (zero cannons). You should have made additional mini-table for 10-13-16 techs comparing armies with and without cannons.
He could have but i think the point was to get a quick easy guide out so people could get a decent understanding of combat
to be fair he said it in the video, i think newbies would skip the table rather than narration
I think it was purely based on passive bonuses from tech (Tactics, Morale, Pips, etc.,) and not from the addition of new units like arty.
Apologies in advance for spelling errors.Dear Reman, at 8:00 in this video, you list improvements army units recieve as a consequence of increased military tech. These percentages are high indeed! However, at the start of the game (1444), your tactics increase from 0.25 to 0.5 (tech 4). Thats double! Or, a 100% increase. No idea group gives you 100% more military tactics. Late in the game, the 0.25 increase you get from tech 30, will have a much lower corresponding persentage increase. So my question is: Do you still think spending 1800 MIL on tech is much stronger than spending 1800 MIL on ideas, in a similar way, around that stage of the game?
I really enjoy your EUIV videos, I hope you never run out of interesting topics to help me improve my game!Regards,Jeremy
Wow! Super useful video! Thanks man!
Great vid as always! Have you considered making a milan/austia-esque guide for more countries? Those are my favorites and seeing you do one for England, Sweden or Prussia would be really great!
Morale is king in SP, there are ways to consistently engineer stack wipes when you want them if it's good :). Assaults are more consistent too.
Wow, that tech 6 over tech 5
electrostatic1 also keep in mind what the tech actually gives.
these videos are my go to now that I've lost my glasses and can't efficiently read the wiki
What I often do is accumulate as many points as I can, instead of rushing tech. This way, if I am attacked, I can easily tech up to my neighbours tech with some nice discounts (time + ideas), or even tech it further, and so his planned advantage goes to waste, and if I'm not, I can up my ideas while always keeping enough points saved to tech up to my neighbours tech eventually.
This means I get all the nice tech cost reductions from having ideas, I have the ideas themselves, I don't pay the rushed price, and I do not tend to lag behind if I don't fuck up. I only play multiplayer, though, and I have had moments where I have massively fucked up by developing or getting an idea when I shouldn't have, leaving my neighbour with almost three more military technologies than I did. Those are complete absurd and risky bets, buuuut, it has gone fine for me so far.
Also, many thanks for all these tutorials. 2k hours and still, you always teach me some new things.
I would say it is generally okay to be one tech behind and waiting for discounts, but any more would be suicide, especially in competitive multiplayer. Small nations also have the problem that they can't hide their troops till they get morale if the tech has a unit type upgrade.
Another way to do it is calculate how much MP you would get by the time you lose the ahead of time tech bonus (when you upgrade you get 140% or so penalty so if you get 400 MP in 5 years you could get the next idea and then start saving for the next tech and you'll never fall behind in either.
Hey man, I just found your channel and noticed you have no playlists like HOI4, EU4...so could you make them? As far as I concluded your channel is mostly about educating on paradox games so playlists would help a lot
"Point was not to give Prussia magic button for manpower".
Uh...did they miss Prussia's government giving +3 to leader mil? They're the ONLY country for which that magic button still exists. 250 Mil for 2 years of manpower isn't too bad if you're sitting on loads of mil mana.
Anyways, you might still use professionalism if your country is seriously suffering for cash and cant afford mercs.
That's exactly why they nerfed it. If it can still work now, imagine how stupid it would be at half price.
This would mean 125 for Prussia prior to the nerf
i think you need to do one on attack/defense pips and attack/defense sides of the battles. Also how important it is to know which unit types you are fighting under what conditions. Some battles outcome can be completely changed by who attacks who.
Hey Reman, if you had a patreon, I sure would pay on a per video basis to give you a little better incentive to keep the videos coming :)
I've been reading the euiv Combat Wiki: the Moral damage is not defined by your max Moral, its defined by the attackers max moral ---> If your moral your is bigger then enemy one, he will be much faster below 50% where he deals less damage
Regarding early-game fire generals, it would be nice to see a mathematical breakdown of the "first kill" advantage. Even though your fire modifiers are low, getting more kills in the fire phase means that your enemy has fewer troops in the shock phase to hit you back. It didn't seem like your math took that into account, though of course a 6 shock will still beat a 6 fire early on.
great video, but its important to note that the first military techs are some of the most important to the early game
Good video, but I would say the tech vs idea thing was very misleading. You only talked about the first levels where tech give massive bonuses. At later stages ideas can be better than tech
as a rich nation when you get artillary i have to say, you should rush 1 or 2 10 stacks of canons just for the sieges, if i have 100 force limit at that point (a good run or big nation) i have 20 canons by themselves sieging forts, with the rest of my army protecting them or attacking the enemy
8:45~ goes now into my internal head estimates and decision making for when you're behind in mil tech AND you haven't embraced the institution. It gonna hurt monarch pointwise, but advancing a mil idea over a mil tech because of a tech cost modifier isn't gonna be worth it most of the time. maybe if you're finishing off quality at tech 17 with a massive malus to tech cost, which you shouldn't have in the first place at that stage of the game.
I just think it's a pity that cavalry becomes useless. It could and historically did harass the artillery by bypassing the infantry lines. Perhaps it could attack the backline from backline.
Around 7 minutes in you mention how important techs are. I agree. But you're pretty adamant and don't mention exceptions!
For instance, if I recall correctly, tech 17 or so gives you + supply limit and cavalry flanking range. That's practically *NO* difference _at all_ if your opponent aren't fielding cav, and even then, it's probably quite neligible. It's just an example I could remember, but I just wanted to bring that up. Thanks for some great videos!
8:40 ….. never mind xD
However…. I did mention cav flanking range.. ;) Some of these tests.. hm.. well never mind me, it doesn't matter.
Basically attack if numbers are higher
16:27 - I want that advisor ASAP!
Well, do you have 58.0 ducats ? I heard bitcoins work too
Winnetou17 No, just embraced Institution. Damn :/
Maybe if I would have watched all of your instructional videos, I would have had better EU4 playthroughs! Thanks Reman
These videos are so fucking well made
This is a great guide and helps not only new players to the game about the mechanics. My question however is at what cavalry advantage people should consider to keep them in their army? Playing as Poland/Lithuania or any horde give crazy boni in infantry cavalry ratio and an immense additional combat ability. With the fire phase being the first, it appears to be odd using cavalry but nations like Poland can really make the difference in battle during the shock phase in the late game.
When are you starting the EU4 scholarly journal for scientists to publish experiments? IM IN
+1 for the single value cannon btw
Have you considered looking into bicycle divisions and torpedo cruisers in HOI IV cornflakes for an upcoming video?
Well, I found professionalism thing pretty fun for role-playing, such as Prussia with 100 professionalism, 90+ army traditions and... 0 recruits(at least in early-midgame). IMHO, especially after Reman's breakdown, I find professionalism to problematic to have, not even talking about maintaining it.
I'm not that mathy and not that pro either, but I disagree about professionalism in drilling. I always drill my armies, and as a major power, I can often find myself drilling an extra army even during a war to keep them always fresh (think of it as France, Castile>Spain, etc). Not to mention that the manpower pool you can get is a real nice cushion to fall on if you end up losing a war. I find that essentially whoever's got more professionalism saved up, can win the protracted war / can last longer without going too heavy on the mercs.
Not to mention, doesn't it give siege ability which is quite handy too? And reduce or increase your casualties? I mean it's just nice to have.
If morale damage is just casualties * max morale, how do unit morale pips factor in?
Great series you started. Will you also cover naval combat? I understand land combat fairly well, but naval combat is completely beyond me.
Then there's me - losing a battle with 30k against 25k men, while having 3 mil tech advantage...
same, people need to accept that combat is just broken in this game
We need a trade academy and diplomacy academy ASAP
Paradox finally hire that guy!
i Have a question, when i myself tried to figure out the combat system using custom nations, i found that a 40stack of infantry had the possibility to beat a 40stack of infantry and cannons, cause when the first line of infantry fell there was more bodies to go around, while the cannon stacks didnt kill enough, so their infantry lines routed and then the cannons got rekt.
Why is this?
Shouldnt cannons just have obliterated the infantry stacks even though they didnt have reinforcements because of the increased dmg per round?
I must say this was done amatuerly, i didnt know how to freeze Dice rolls, but everything else was accounted for (tech, morale, terrain, generals etc)
This is generally the case, unless the infantry on the cannon side have a lot of defensive bonuses which allow them to stay in the fight longer. Cannons are useful most when you already have equal numbers of infantry, or you already have a full frontline flank. In that case, they can take a minor victory and turn it into a massive one. Ultimately, cannons allow you to increase your combat width, and in any case where combat width or flanking is the restricting factor, cannons make a huge difference.
at tech 16, pure infantry will start to lose
I'm really looking forward to your analysis of military ideas, when do you think that episode will be out?
amazing video
they might make army proffesionalism worth it a bit more if the allow your backup manpower pool to also be trained. to a certain % of your total profesionalism.
I just recently started a Poland campaign and I was wondering, is Poland's 33% cavalry combat ability a strong enough bonus to make them worth keeping around or should I still ditch them for cannons?
The eastern nations (Poland, Hungary, and Lithuania) have good enough cavalry that they're a better option than infantry as long as you don't run into insufficient support, but they're just about the only ones.
This video took me about an hour of reading the wiki to watch, but was very helpful
it didn't help me
Thanks for the info I usually waste mil points on ideas only with being 2 techs behind lol
How does that conflict with naval combat, would it be worth it to focus on diplo power over military power with maritime nations like venice? Hope to see naval combat academy soon. Love this channel!
Amazing, thanks.
Is there a guide for nations modifiers for morale? I notice European countries have elan? Which gives 15% more. I'm not sure if its only available as eu nations. I wish there's a video on all modifiers
Are you going to upload any more videos? they are very entertaining and have helped me alot in eu4 :)
Clarification on one bit of math.
For the +% land fire/shock damage dealt/received, is that just another multiplier to base casualty rate or is it somehow interacting directly with the unit fire/shock technology multiplier?
so professionalism is basicly a waist of money now? at least in most games/ in the early game?
can't we still get manpower from it every few years is needed?
isn't it viable to just use it as a money to manpower converter?
are the bonuses really not impactful enough to spend a lot of money on?
am I really going to need to spam mercs again?
Mercs are a much better money to manpower converter. Also, if you don't sell the mercs after the war is done, you can keep building up army professionalism through events (and drilling if you're desperate).
I personally disagree with reman here, drilling CAN be good. Like all things EU4, all things are relative. I'm currently playing an extended timeline game where I can't expand quickly. Thanks to the Abbasid Caliphate to my north, I need to rely on vassalizing in no-cb wars to expand, followed by annexing the vassal to gain the cores needed for fabrication. My dominance over the Gulf of Aiden has given me staggering amounts of money, but Africa's low development and harsh attrition make quality far more important than quantity. By keeping my professionalism at max, I get a bonus to damage & siege ability dramatically lowering casualties in war.
The movement speed bonus from drilling is NOT to be underestimated, the added mobility is the reason I keep by drilling on max for all units in peacetime. It's also why I entirely dumped mercs. armies with an average of 100% drill get a staggering 20% movement speed boost. Enemies I route don't have a chance to regen much morale, I can more effectively reinforce losing battles, target smaller armies, and when I'm routed I regen more morale & troops before they return. Combined with the amount of forts my nation has, bonuses to attrition, & high discipline my army is one of the strongest in the world and could win defensive wars with far stronger nations.
This style would be sub-optimal at best in early or late game europe in the base game. But in my current scenario it is a godsend. Understanding how all the mechanics fit together and your current position is what separates good players from great ones.
Thanks for that, I was wondering in what scenarios drilling would be good cos I do like the mechanic of it even if it was "nerfed' and not a "always-good' idea. I think situational, niche mechanics are good for the game ... I don't think everything has to always be good for it to be a worthwhile addition to the game.
after some experimenting it's just there. an extra bonus you might use just like the new innovativeness system. it's there and it gives some bonuses but you can just ignore it
Reman, good overall analysis. However Professionalism is certainly not ignorable or weak!
Mercs lower professionalism by a very small amount. 100 mercs only translate into -15% professionalism. For example if you would have 100% professionalism by Age of Absolutism, having 85% is still amazing. In one of my blobbing games I had over 200 mercs by 1650 with 100% absolutism. The key is simply not to dump points in development or lots of military ideas, roll generals constantly and as a bonus you can go do something awesome when your 30th one happens to be a 6/6.
with new 1.25 you get hald trade and production incom and armies costs are doubled and maintnence cost reductions halved id say mercing up is now a genuine last resort again unless you have a strong hold on an end node
So which army is more likely to win? An army with 5% more Discipline or 15% Morale?
To win the battle? probably the morale. To win on casualties? Probably the discipline. And as Reman mentioned, morale is only useful if it pushes you over one of the three cutoffs, but dealing more damage and taking less damage is always useful.
15% morale. If you had only 10% morale then it would be close (with morale having an advantage early and discipline having an advantage late), but 15% morale is too good.
Game Over Ramen missed this but early game moral is king because your units barely do enough damage to justify disc. Late game it's the opposite.
This isn't your average, everyday combat.. this is.. *ADVANCED COMBAT..*
Maybe make some strategies to forming Personal Unions.
I have an issue of my troops entering battle for moral to end up with only sixty percent when the battle actually began. It is infatuating, I don't know what causes it, and use my army maintenance is at the highest.
If you mean that your army has a sizeable part of the morale bar red while your enemy's is fully green, that means a morale difference. For instance, if your enemy has a morale of 5.0, but you only have 3.5, then you will get a partially red bar. The reason your enemy has more morale than you can mean that they have a higher military technology, have defensive ideas, have national ideas that boost morale (Castile/Spain and France are notorious in this regard) or have a much higher army tradition.