Defensive or Offensive Ideas?

[Corvus_Alt1]

Assuming I picked Quality Ideas first, which would be a better second pick assuming I'm getting both, Defensive of Offensive? Note, I am playing as France at the moment, and I already picked up Innovative, Quality and Exploration ideas.

[Kitten Food]

why would you pick quality first? the benefits only become useful later in the game as units get more and more pips. honestly, you just wasted your first mil choice. as france, defensive or offensive should always be your first military choice. defensive is very useful early on with the morale bonuses that pair perfectly with france.

[Corvus_Alt1]

Because I like the Innovative-Quality and Quality-Exploration policies, as well as the Economic-Quality policy, all of which tend to prove really powerful. So, not really a waste in my opinion.

And fine, I guess Defensive Ideas next. Thank you.

[691neil]

Originally posted by Corvus917:

Because I like the Innovative-Quality and Quality-Exploration policies, as well as the Economic-Quality policy, all of which tend to prove really powerful. So, not really a waste in my opinion.

And fine, I guess Defensive Ideas next. Thank you.

I like to take Def with Qual for the army tradition stack and then try and take Off late game. If I could only afford one I would take Off as I consider it is an all round better idea group.

[equinox1911]

Depends on your goals, and yes quality first is the worst mil idea to pick. MIght sound good on paper but it's nothing short of bad. Offensive is better when you have the whole group but deffensive gives you 15% morale with just 800 points and depending on whom you wish to fight (France and Spain) you kinda need it to be on equal footing moral wise.

[Surimi]

They're both good, simply put, especially when combined with quality. I would ultimately say that offensive gives you a bit more though, the increased forcelimits are handy and early game you probably won't be able to afford all the forts which would make defensive really powerful. Defensive is front-loaded though so if you're concerned about military points take defensive, get the first couple of ideas and then leave it and come back to it later.

[Corvus_Alt1]

Alright, I get it, Quality isn't that great an idea group compared to Defensive and Offensive. I just happen to like it when playing as France or Britain because it gives me access to really good policies. Regardless, I do really well with Quality Ideas, and I like picking it up first simply because it's one of those groups I'll always want to pick up at some point. I don't necessarily like picking up Offensive early unless I already have a ridiculously strong military a la Prussia, or already have an idea group that boosts my army's overall per unit strength. And to be honest, I tend to hesitate about picking up Defensive simply because I'm used to picking up Plutocratic Ideas over Defensive whenever I get the opportunity. Since that's not likely to happen until the French Revolution, I figured only now that I'd pick up Defensive Ideas.

Thanks for the input, I guess I'll decide when I get to that Idea group unlock.

[equinox1911]

It's not that Quality is a bad group but especially early on others do much more for you. The big point about quality are the policies but until ~1700s they are just not very affordable and the normal mil tech needs to be on par as well.
Offensive just gives you SO much more impact with better leaders and shorter siege time, Defensive is awesome to get on par with morale and quantity (which i would put as the alternative to quality) just solves the MP problem and you can field a 22.5% percent larger army for the same cost.
These three just solve peoblems much better than the somewhat generic "you fight better" approach that quality provides.
It surly is a viable option, but if you talk about what is best and what to pick first or second i see no value in quality compared with the other options.

[691neil]

Originally posted by Corvus917:

Alright, I get it, Quality isn't that great an idea group compared to Defensive and Offensive. I just happen to like it when playing as France or Britain because it gives me access to really good policies. Regardless, I do really well with Quality Ideas, and I like picking it up first simply because it's one of those groups I'll always want to pick up at some point. I don't necessarily like picking up Offensive early unless I already have a ridiculously strong military a la Prussia, or already have an idea group that boosts my army's overall per unit strength. And to be honest, I tend to hesitate about picking up Defensive simply because I'm used to picking up Plutocratic Ideas over Defensive whenever I get the opportunity. Since that's not likely to happen until the French Revolution, I figured only now that I'd pick up Defensive Ideas.

Thanks for the input, I guess I'll decide when I get to that Idea group unlock.

Actually I like quality a lot and I also never pick offensive early as IMO Defensive and quality are better early/mid game. I guess it depends on preference and play style - enjoy your game, hope it goes well.

[equinox1911]

@691neil:
Either you provide anything more than "it's better in timeframe" or just realise that Quality indeed is quite a bad idea group. If you want to compare these and have any reference to objectivity you have to provide more than your gut feeling...

[Peel]

Every conversation I see about these three groups has Quality shot down because Offensive provides better generals. This is mostly true, but not as much as you might expect.

Offensive gives +1 to Shock and Fire. Quality gives +1 Army Tradition per year. While not immediately useful, this translates at a steady state of: +2% Morale Recovery, +5% Morale, +2% Manpower Recovery, +1% Siege Ability, and an average +1.6 to general pips (+2 if you roll max).

As for the rest of the idea group: disipline is the same, Recruitment time and prestige from battles are almost meaningless. That leaves Offensive with +20% Siege, +20% Force Limit and +5% Recover Morale. Quality has +10% Combat ability and some good naval bonuses. This part depends on preference, but I would equate the combat ability with the force limit (one's better for armies with lots of money and low FL, the other for armies with a high FL but no money). I'll merge the +5% morale to Quality's general pips to assume they're the same.

What's left is +19% Siege, +3% Morale Recovery (difference), vs naval bonuses. Obviously for a landlocked nation Offensive is clearly superior, but for a naval power the two are much closer.

Offensive is better at what it does, but Quality offers so much more all round goodness. Quality is my go to first miliary idea for any nation that uses its navy...

[equinox1911]

Originally posted by Peel:

Every conversation I see about these three groups has Quality shot down because Offensive provides better generals. This is mostly true, but not as much as you might expect.

Offensive gives +1 to Shock and Fire. Quality gives +1 Army Tradition per year. While not immediately useful, this translates at a steady state of: +2% Morale Recovery, +5% Morale, +2% Manpower Recovery, +1% Siege Ability, and an average +1.6 to general pips (+2 if you roll max).

As for the rest of the idea group: disipline is the same, Recruitment time and prestige from battles are almost meaningless. That leaves Offensive with +20% Siege, +20% Force Limit and +5% Recover Morale. Quality has +10% Combat ability and some good naval bonuses. This part depends on preference, but I would equate the combat ability with the force limit (one's better for armies with lots of money and low FL, the other for armies with a high FL but no money). I'll merge the +5% morale to Quality's general pips to assume they're the same.

What's left is +19% Siege, +3% Morale Recovery (difference), vs naval bonuses. Obviously for a landlocked nation Offensive is clearly superior, but for a naval power the two are much closer.

Offensive is better at what it does, but Quality offers so much more all round goodness. Quality is my go to first miliary idea for any nation that uses its navy...

That seems like an almost fair description of what these idea groups provide. So lets get to it!

I will assume early game values here since this is about which to pick first (there is no denying that quality has it's time to shine with the policies lategame) and to be honest i'd rather put quality vs quantity but thats another topic.
Firstly i will group the ideas to better compare them, lets take the first 3 of each:
Off: +1 shock, -10% recruit time, +1 fire.
Qual: +10%combat ability for inf and cav, +1 army tradition per year.
[the army tradition is from 1.2 - 2 leader pips on average, but i have a hard time seeing it bein worth more than 1.6 which is the pretty high value range from 40 - 60 tradition early on]
I will especially early game ALWAYS choose the single guranteed shock over 1.2-1.6 random pips plus the combat abilities (they are not worth much until around tech 12 anyways when they become somewhat of a factor). The only thing that makes these groups somewhat comparable is the +5% morale.
The problem of assining value starts here because + prestige from battles easily offsets that 5% morale. Being able to cap prestige easily is just insanly good and helps paying for +FL!
Ok next grouping:
Off: Prestige, FL , 3% recover morale
Qual: 5% ship durability, 10% navy morale, -25% naval attrition.

There can't be any argument here what is better, the only thing of value that quality provides is +100 prestige from circumnavigation. The naval fighting stats are by far not enough to offset having lesser or worse ships. And with any decent roll a bit of Mana for an admiral will give you the same. This is a case of neat but it does not have any impact or allows you to do different things. If you want to challange England on the sea this is not even close to make you competitive for example.
20% FL on the other hand can just flat out win you wars. Even if you can't afford the FL in peacetime those 10-20 merc infantry without paying over FL are the edge you can leverage into meaningful progress.

So yeah both have 5% discipline, neat.

And now to the last and honestly biggest advantage Offensive has over Quality:
10% arty combat vs 20% siege time.
Arty is ♥♥♥♥ before tech 13 anyways and the new casualties reports confirm what i always thought. 50% or even more of casualties a player takes are by attrition and early game that means it comes from sieges. So you have fewer casualties and you don't have to wait ages to take forts in won wars which is a HUGE advantage.

This alone brings more to the table than the whole quality idea group without it's 5% discipline.

Guarnteed shock is really good but the 20% siege with the ability to at least field one more siege stack just kicks quality out of the room as an early game option.

[ZeratulR]

Defensive is probably the worst possible idea for a country like France. Army tradition is not too useful since you will get a lot of it from constant fighting anyway, morale bonus is overkill because of Elan, improved maneuver is extremely situational, maintenance modifier is ok, but it's not as good as Quantity, fort bonuses and attrition for enemy are plain useless because if enemy troops are in your territory for a lot of time, you are doing it wrong, reinforce speed is hardly noticeable and attrition reduction is irrelevant if you can micromanage your troops properly.

Offensive is vastly superior. Especially for France.

[Peel]

Originally posted by equinox1911:

Stuff

I agree with most of what you have there, however:

Attrition from siege - you first say bulk up to FL with mercs, and then complain about Manpower losses, those two are completely different strategies in my view. mercs mean that almost all losses in victory are felt by them, but if you can afford them then Offensive is better for the FL anyway (that point was good). If you can't afford the mercs then the extra punch of a same size and cost quality army will help you flat out losing battles (and early stackwipes are my main source of loss). In sieges the cost is no longer an issue, the manpower is, but you made that decision to cut the army cost.

Prestige from battles - presige is undeniably powerful, but from my experience the contribution from battles is very small. Therefore the value from this I think is overestimated.

Naval vs Siege - these are very different and I think you undervalue the navy immensely. If you have a far superior navy these could be seen as overkill, but if you are on a close footing with the enemy then +10% morale is as powerful as it is on land. Some wars cannot be won without naval superiority. Saying that it's not enough to face England - in the same way Quality / Offensive is not enough to face Prussia on equal footing, but does that diminish their worth?

Your groupings - I had grouped all the +10% into 'Combat Ability' as they essentially do the same thing, obviously +20% siege is better than +10% Artillery Combat early on, no idea groups are uniformly distributed.

Early on I think Offensive is better for land, Quality is good for naval, Quality can scale better into the late game where force limits are less of a problem.

______________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by ZeratulR:

Defensive is probably the worst possible idea for a country like France.

I would disagree here. Early on the Morale stacking is powerful, and the Army Tradition (as pointed out above) is extremely good. Later on the Fort stacking can mean that you can probably turn around a bad defensive war or kill a superior manpower force with attrition, and your forts won't bankrupt your country. If you don't plan for the possibility of a difficult war you are doing it wrong...

As a European France I'd probably still go Offensive, and as a Colonial France Quality. If you find yourself always in a bad diplomatic situation, Defensive would be best. All three are very good.

[equinox1911]

Not sure what you are arguing exactly. Atrittion is atrittion, it's the players choice to pay with mercs or MP for it. The part about afford is just missleading. The way the economy is set up currently and how loans work you can for all practical purpose just merc your way out of nearly any situation. It's a matter of efficiency and my argument was that if you can field one more siege at a time the war will be over sooner. And an early game Quality army is not superior to the Offensive one because you have better generals (where it matters) and 20% more troops to offset the quality boni.

Maybe i overestimate prestige gain but it's compared to 20 army tradition so no i don't think so. In a huge war gaining 20 prestige from battles is not uncommon and doubling that is nice, especially since it generates trade income.

My argument against the naval part of quality is very simple, the boni are there and can make a difference but you could just choose to build a few more heavies. The issue here is that it's not enough to put you over the top and that naval battles our days are pretty much only won on numbers, composition and ship type advantages.

While siege ability allows the player to wage 20% wars (ye i know the math isn't that simple) that are confined much more by timing and MP than by money you can always spend your way out of a naval disadvantage when you need to. And you only need to to it once per nation may it be England, Sweden or whomever.

I thought i made it clear that my critizism is soley on the early game and the timing to pick up quality. It can be really strong lategame with the right policies but even after offensive and defensive/quantity i don't see many cases where it is too useful.

The main problem is that it does not solve problems it's just buffs everything a bit.
MP issues, get Quantity, moral disadvantage get Defensive, want to win wars cheaper and faster get Offensive. Even the others are situationaly very useful.


Moral stacking is not bad, but for france early on you probably get your Elan! when you pick the first mil idea group and there is a lot to be said to get +1 shock with that. I think because of the power curve in the two groups it's more a decission that needs context. If you are fine squashing some nobodys until offensive is done, get it. If you need to fight one of the big hitters get defensive, sink 800 points and get the best part of the group.

[Peel]

Originally posted by equinox1911:

More Stuff

I think we have similar views, the differences are just in the weightings.

With the attrition stuff and in regards to efficiency - getting loans for mercenaries is a terrible long term strategy and should only be considered when the results of the war are important and yet close enough to be influenced by money.

The speed of wars is a big point I overlooked however, and that puts the balance for land powers even further into Offensive - more peace=more everything basically!

Perhaps the difference in our arguements stems from playstyle: I like to be able to consistently hit harder than what I'm supposed to have. Offensive (apart from the excellent leader boosts) simply makes you better at sledgehammering opponents. You either win quickly by a landslide, or spend a massive chunck of money to boost your army over its initial force limit to enable you to win against bad odds. In the first case I'd rather take a non military idea for less time between wars, for the second I would take Defensive...