Hidden numbers, lack of balancing, rng simulation?

[Waking]

So since I picked up the game I've observed the combat (and not only) doesnt seem to make any sense whatsoever. First I'll give some examples, and than I'll mention parts of game that are unbalanced.

So...

First campaign I started was as Karaman, managed to get territory from Caucaus down to Sinai and Mesopotamia, magic Ottoman army defeated me stackwiping my twice as big army defending in Armenia mountains. Same technology, defensive ideas on my side, 5% difference in discipline to his advantage, morale on mine. Ended campaign since it would be just a snawball for him since than.

Second campaing I started was as Byzantium, this time managed to get achievement, however to defeat Ottomans I needed.... Austria (Emperor), Hungary, Moscow, and Mamluks and still they kept their war enthusiasm high untill I sieged literally every county. With allies like that and tech up by 1 on my side it should be a stomp, but it wasn't for who knows what reasons. After getting first war I got controll of Bosphorus so in this case beating Ottomans was more trick related than fighting. I got allies all around them so they couldn't expand otherwise they would probably beat entire world at once. After I defeated Ottomans I started fighting Mameluks that had way more troops than Ottomans ever had in the campaign, they had 115% discipline, like 40% good mid game canons, all that stuff and to my surprise fighting them felt actually more fair and easier!

Third campaign I started was as Trebizond, managed to take whole area from inicial position up to Caspian Sea. Had about 25k troops plus 5k vassal, and allied Moscow, Ajam (semi Persia), Genua, Hungary. Before that happend Ottomans decleared on Austria and Hungary and obviusly stomped them, surprise surprise. Than direcly after they fight Mameluks with number disadvantage, and they stomp them aswell. Than they declare on me, Ajam, Muscowy (that alone had more troops than them), Hungary, Genoa. some other ally I had with 10k and that's about it. I sit on level 3 mountain fort I have superior 4-3 general, they attack into mountains, I have 15% more morale from defensive, they have 14k troops reinoforced later by 13k, so the first 14k managed to drop morale, and I still lose having numbers, positional and tactical advantage, plus same tech.

Obviusly Ottomans fighting 50% of great powers without any breaks don't get revolts? war exhaustion? manpower problems? behind in tech since they need to core and stop revolts? Over agressive expansion? Money problems? I am certain this nation for some reason gets some hidden broken buffs that make it into some sort of Aztec Invasion level bs in CK II. I fought France, Austria, Spain, all of that nations should be superior combat wise, especially in early modern era, yet none feel unfair to fight against.


- Terrain seems to be more or less useless, it was a deciding factor in majority of battles not only in said era, but in whole history. Defending in rough terrain, especially mountains should give advantage. Even hundreds years later with advanced technology during WW1 Italians and Austrians fighting in Alps had quite a lot of problems. While gunmen with front loaded guns and arty units don't. Is there even cavalry combat ability debuff based on terrain in this game? Probably not, I guess Skyrim horses.

In CK II it was made way better were defending in certain terrain gave flat >percentage< bonuses to defending side and debuffs to attacking side. That felt way more like it should be. Or at least give generals with high manouver better performance in rough terrain, that would make sense.

- Winning battles doesnt seem to make any impact aswell, there are armies walking 3 times over supply limit and it literally doesnt matter since they ressuply in realtime speed, reminds me of bs event spawned troops in CK II, I see they like to import bad mechanics. Point is enemies just ressuply their troop count to the point they have no more manpower, or like in case of Ottomans at infinite level. After that resource runs out they spam mercenaries, they go into debt and still keep all combat ability plus no need to manage attricion since manpower isnt even relevant anymore. Loans really brake the game.

- Sieges are another thing, in CK II you have a bar that depending on your technology and other factors sets a monthly % siege speed and after cerrtain amount of time without any unlucky events you siege the castle/city/temple. Fort mechanics, not to mention how absurd the blocking mechanic is, is just entirely RNG based, a diceroll game can't be called strategy. Literally everything is gambling with luck, and some nations (Ottomans), get some premium rng it seems. Even their rulers are always at least 2 digit combined in stats 90% of the time.

- Alliances and AI, again can't believe it but downgrade from CK II, I allied England and in the war it proved to be more useless ally than Wurstburg ! 50% of their units were sitting useless at home, than a 50k stack on Faroe Islands... And yet they were considered second world power after Russia. They had boats, but first Pdx needs to make a decent AI in game. Not to mention allies walking around like a headless chickens often ignoring battle literally next to them, even in CK II they changed orders for alllies, and now they actually in most cases listen or at least actually help, siege selected counties. Also AI cant manage their country going into massive debts, as Byzantium I had to pay 7k to Russia and 4k to France only that they go out of debt and help me in war. Somehow the most I took in this game was like 5 loans...

- Peace mechanics another worthles system, where an ally can peace out after doing nothing, in Ck II if you don't help usually alliance brakes and war ends when leader presents demands.

- Agressive expansion is another mechanic that is made worse than in CK II, no matter how big and powerfull you are, taking a province will net same numbers, when in Ck II threat system depends on your size, if you conquer a duchy with a minor country you will get average threat, while conquering a single county with big empire will direcly net like 20% or more threat. System was much more fair for minor nations, since big ones are to big to care anyways so not scaling numbers is a mistake.

- Rebels are probably one of few things made better, since in CK II i nearly never see a succesfull revolt that takes a province.

- Converting is made better, since it isn't a % chance but a process, thats another thing done better. And that would probably be about it?

Probably missed some aspects, but this game really feels like a diceroll, even when starting the game hostility is randomly generated per country. % based numbers would make combat, and not only way more enjoyable but also satisfying, now you don't really feel like in full controll. After getting the Basileus achievement it didn't give any satisfaction since you literally are trapped in web of alliances against invisible numbers, buffs and visible random odds. Game seems way less complex and barebones than Ck II. Only to look at DLC quality and opinions can make you thing, where the development of this since release has gone. After 7? years this game should really be polished, like CK II got. Never experience anything to that scale of RNG in CK II or Hoi 4.

[grotaclas]

While there is a lot of RNG in the game, this affects beginner players much more than experienced players. For example it is somewhat random who rivals you at the start, but you can adapt your strategies to the situation at hand. You can rival them back and then it becomes easier to ally their rivals. But if you rely on a strategy guide which says that you should ally the country that rivaled you, your strategy will fail.
It seems that you choose very very difficult campaigns by starting as small countries near the Ottomans who are the strongest country in the game. That increases the amount of luck that you need to be successful.

The numbers in the game are not invisible, you just have to know where to look. You can for example hover over the individual regiments in a battle to see their stats. The Ottomans get several advantages there. Their anatolian units have more pips at some tech levels(especially in the early game) and they have Janissaries as infantry that receive 10% less damage and gain drill twice as fast.
The Ottomans are also a lucky nation that despite its name doesn't give them any advantage in RNG. It also doesn't give advantages in battles. But it gives them for example better siege ability and fort defense. This makes them complete sieges faster than their enemies. In the Age of Discovery, they can unlock the age ability "The Guns of Urban" that gives them another 33% siege ability. You can see these abilities if you hover over the fort defense number in a siege.
Some special abilities are only visible to the country that has them. But you can read about that on the wiki[eu4.paradoxwikis.com]. The Ottomans for example get better rulers due to the Harem mechanic[eu4.paradoxwikis.com] and due to their status as a lucky nation.

[Stayin Alive]

CK2 is so boring though. Also im not really sure what you mean by all these hidden modifiers. sure some of them can be pretty hard to calculate but most of them can be seen in the actual battle (like combat ability maybe?). I would argue that the combat system in eu4 is far more fleshed out then Ck2.

[Waking]

Originally posted by grotaclas:

While there is a lot of RNG in the game, this affects beginner players much more than experienced players. For example it is somewhat random who rivals you at the start, but you can adapt your strategies to the situation at hand. You can rival them back and then it becomes easier to ally their rivals. But if you rely on a strategy guide which says that you should ally the country that rivaled you, your strategy will fail.
It seems that you choose very very difficult campaigns by starting as small countries near the Ottomans who are the strongest country in the game. That increases the amount of luck that you need to be successful.

The numbers in the game are not invisible, you just have to know where to look. You can for example hover over the individual regiments in a battle to see their stats. The Ottomans get several advantages there. Their anatolian units have more pips at some tech levels(especially in the early game) and they have Janissaries as infantry that receive 10% less damage and gain drill twice as fast.
The Ottomans are also a lucky nation that despite its name doesn't give them any advantage in RNG. It also doesn't give advantages in battles. But it gives them for example better siege ability and fort defense. This makes them complete sieges faster than their enemies. In the Age of Discovery, they can unlock the age ability "The Guns of Urban" that gives them another 33% siege ability. You can see these abilities if you hover over the fort defense number in a siege.
Some special abilities are only visible to the country that has them. But you can read about that on the wiki[eu4.paradoxwikis.com]. The Ottomans for example get better rulers due to the Harem mechanic[eu4.paradoxwikis.com] and due to their status as a lucky nation.

Reality is other, I restart untill Ottomans are neutral for easier time, seen experienced players do same in ther scenarios.

Also in scenarios I brought I never had problem with gaining allies, problem is that western tech groups or just superior numbers with minor differences such as 5% discipline can't beat them. I mean like 157 k Ottoman alliance vs over 400k allies, some of them with tech advantage, none behind. And it is often a struggle, first of all because there is so much RNG, second because AI is so badly made, not even imported from CK II since it is dumber but from Eu 3? Honestly cant tell.

Ottomans are the strongest at the start, but with time other countries start to gain power, like Muscowy, that like I mentioned had at the time same number of soldiers. I often use ledger in CK II and in EU IV so I can see important data. But unfortunetly in EU IV judging by the numbers like discipline morale, army size and composition doesnt give you certainty about anything, since dicerolling happends during war and you have zero impact on it. Ottomans are strong, but I am pretty sure they get some hidden buffs, since observing other nations such as Mameluks shows the disproportion, in times when numbers are equal. I am certain there must be reason they have close to infinite manpower and lowered war exhaustion, giving bunuses to a country already that big and in very good geographical position is absurd. In Ck II country is powerfull because of its size or position, not hidden cheat buffs.


Main difference I observe is that in CK II player that knows what he is doing will nearly always win a battle, tactics employed and balancing out flanks are deciding factors, but in EU IV not only it is more simplified, but also the numbers you get are dicerolled. And I saw few people on twitch and youtube crash the game after a battle they call bs and doing it once again in same scenario and winning. As an experienced player, or aka spaming broken mercenary system from my observation you can just flood enemy with units. In EU IV good player has higher chance to win because of macro management, but where it comes to battle, the dices are what matters.



@Finn, How so? CK II has way more depth and mechanics to it, you can calculate nearly everything on spreadsheet. Different goverments really feel different gameplay wise, chosing terrain matters, religion matters, getting sunni ally as christian is way harder. You get starts which you can't exploit out of that easily, when you are in debt and can't menage your country you are done, your armies have morale debuffs and when you are on minus cash mercenaries >rebel< as they should. You are broke no spamming loans your country gets huge debuffs calculated for every province. Learning EU IV took way less since there is way less to it, and thats fine I only require that it should be continuation of EU III which was a decent game, but the amount of dicerolling on everything....

To prove it, just try to crash game, after rolling to get monster general, after getting an bad event, after rerolling advisior to get the right one, and finally in battle, 2 scenarios and I guarantee that depending on luck, and not skill or even much of player involvement I guarantee outcomes will vary. (15k vs 15, or similar for example, not 100k vs 15k but thats the point close battles are decided by RNG). Same for sieges, it is also a diceroll, and not a % modifier based process, you can increase your initial dice chances but thats about it.

In EU IV you observe morale, thats fine, you can check leader stats and dispipline, army experience, but real problem is you observe dices rolling 9 for Ottomans attacking into mountains, and 3 for defenders? Ck II, and for fact Hoi IV are superior when it comes to terrain and combat overall, and thats because it is % wise based where it is possible to be calculated, not hoped for. Am I wrong here, or is there some other reason even best players in this game spam mercenaries and reload obviously heavy diced battles.

[Waking]

1. Fighting a war with less than full maitenance is not something anyone would do. I had 5.76/5.76 morale Ottomans about 4.9. I ahd 100% discipline they had 105%. he had 1-3 general, I had 4-3. He was attacking into level 3 mountain fort that I was defending. As Trebizond I had 25 k + 5k vassal troops. Army tradition bouth above 5%. Ottomans had 14 + 11k attacking with a little delay between. I played 1.4k hours in CK II and about 100h in Eu IV now, and I know which mubers to check, and what to check. Problem is checking in Eu IV gives you only a chance of succeding since the rest decides out of human controll. As I mentioned AI is badly designed so I am not sure if it determined superiority with account to all circumstances and my advantage in numbers (statisticly wise). So many times I have 150k troops standing in net next to each other in a net and Ai just attacks with 50k since it calculations apply only to 1 privince? I don't know programming AI is hard I guess.

2. When it comes to early Anatolian troops advantage I know that, thats why I always wait to declare/fight after i reach tech 5 or 9(case with Trapezond), in case of Karaman it was already 1650s or so and that early advantage didn't play any role.

3. I typed the values know, my mistake to not give them, but obviusly I check the numbers, defensive early on against Ottomans gave me morale advantage.

Terrain
Once again obviusly I know that terrain gives you extra dice(not blind yet), which really doesnt matter considering dice range is 9 for every side, which means factors are so huge such a small number is irrelevant in far to many cases. Flat -20% for enemy and +20% for defender in mountains is way more reliable and sensible as I played bouth games.

Lucky Nations?
That actually helps to anwser the question I previusly mentioned. So Ottomans, strongest nation in the game, with superb starting geopolitical position, acess to everything an empire would need gets even more bonuses just for existing on top of it? It's like giving mongols in 1226 recovery rate on event spawned troops. So indeed there is a cheat engine implemented to boost enemy to absurd levels. Shameful system I tought was used only in Total War games, where devs are to lazy to improve AI so they give them cheats. That would probably anwser Ottoman issue I had.

Siegies
Not sure if you played CK II and you'll know what I mean but I try to explain it. In CK II you have a tech modifier, size of your army, size of defenders, siege tech of defenders, general ability etc, all that is calculated and you have a certain siege advancement every 2 weeks (for example guarateed 5%, and some siege events that can slow or speed things a little bit related to general skill). However there is no dice rolling and % random chance you siege it faster or slower. Numbers are there and you know what to expect.


Alliances
If they managed to fix AI in CK II i expect to do so in EU IV, and going to england as Byzantium with 1 stack wouldn't really help.


Peace
Thats sensible however idle England sitting in his country when called in and not contributing should get -1 stability and -10 prestige (for example) every year of non participating related do % strenght of alliance. Also scaling agressive expansion (threat elvel) was impelented in CK II which didn't had any of these mechanics, and Eu IV can't adjust it....


EU IV vs CK II

easiest way to put it is that in any good competetive game (CS GO, LoL, Starcraft), RNG will be minimal or close to, and the reason is RNG is like the name says random, which indicates skill cant be involved. Hitting a 6 in Lotto is not a skill, it is luck. Hitting 9 in shock phase is not skill it is luck.

Plus as I mentioned experience doesnt come in micro but in macro play. Experienced playes as I observed mutlimple times crash the game if battle is bs, and I udnerstand them, being good at the game as they are and dragged by dices has to be frustrating.

Provided video is typical strategy [edit.: I saw on youtube]. In this case the creator got very lucky tho, since most of the times there is like 30-35k stack sitting on Constantinopole, and Ottomans don't split troops.
I also see he is going close to bancrupcy since this "strategy" requires exploiting mercs and debt system that should put the country into a totall and utter mess. As mentioned before I don't get more than 5 loans, and don't buy mercs if cant afford them, but besides that I did everything the same, but with larger amount of allies, and focusing Edirne strait, whilst keeping my economy.

And I totally understand different outcomes that are present in all paradox games, but the core, the battle mechanics are very badly made. War overall. Other apsects like province menagement diplomacy etc is quite well made and fun, if it wasnt I wouldn't play it, but besides macro I think micro should also be skillbased and less RNG dependent. Smaller nations should go into debt and merc spam whilst bigger ones get cheats, or bonuses on top of their already favourable position. I understand people trying to explain how it works, but I ask why it is not how it is.

[Waking]

I can show battles where AI attacks me with 109k (Austria) and I win with 39k defending though the strait of Constantinopole, but you have to understand that in dice roll game that doesnt mean anything. If I will reload the game and fight the exact same battle with same numbers I might aswell lose and the deciding factor will be a dice roll.

As I mentioned before In scenario with 15k vs 15k or about the same, and no numeral disadvantage in achievable bonuses the battle will be decided heavily by RNG, not skill as you imply. And deciding factor should be your army's flat stats. Disbalanced battles that from start already have numeral disadvantage can't prove anything since they are not comparable. I talk about full maitenance, knowing your enemies tech, units, discipline, tradition, general, knowing the numbers and chosing the terrain, waiting for enemy to get locked in arriving first getting defensive bonus. All of that is what player can do to negate what really will be decided, and that is dices. And I don't think you'd argue that battles in EU IV are decided mainly by skill, partially maybe but certainly not mostly.

By no means I say combat in CK II is perfect but only RNG I need to worry about is chosing right tactic by commander, and I can chose right commander myself (unlike RNG rolling and hoping for a good one in EU IV) to improve the chances for using advanced tactics. That's the thing I chose, the battle that is ongoing and army composition, flank proportions compared to centre size, unit type on different flanks, and unit types adequate for terrain I fight on. 90% of battles or so is decided though human decisions. In Eu IV its like 50/50? Best case? As the rules of "randomness" would suggest?

Will follow the discussion further as it is interesting.

[bri]

==========The things you're talking about are frustrating to new players because they're meant to be. That is the challenge of the game.

They aren't meant to be frustrating, the information needed to explain what is happening is readily available both in and out of game. It's just often frustrating to people because they don't take the time/put in the effort to actually understand.

Experienced playes as I observed mutlimple times crash the game if battle is bs, and I udnerstand them, being good at the game as they are and dragged by dices has to be frustrating.

Those aren't good players even if they might be more well-known due to being streamers and whatnot. Good players won't lose battles due to "RNG bs" because they don't fight the battles where they require decent to good RNG to win. Unless, of course, they are playing some of the hardest starts in which case they generally take the L, carry on until the game is lost and re-start (assuming they don't turn the war around in later battles).

[Waking]

"Good players won't lose battles due to "RNG bs" because they don't fight the battles where they require decent to good RNG to win."

Well there is a reason even best players need restarting their campaigns, or maybe there are some Gods that are abscent from youtube and twitch and manage to do it first second try, didn't see any personally.
Not all battles can be chosen, especially when you are declared on, and when you are declared on or you spam mercenaries and go near bancrupcy, or you turst in your calculations which may or may not be destroyed by games rng.
Dice rolls should be replaced with flat numbers, nations shouldn't get extra bonuses for just existing and debt system should disallow buying mercenaries without money, than the game would become skillbased in every aspect. All of quides I see is for example: Ally albiania to get navy advantage, spam mercenaries since you cant win with your own army, wait for them to come on Constantinopol, sally out and attack with your absurd over force limit indebt merc army and borrow money from invisible bankers. Than peace out take back most of that money and province. And all of this because you can't trust yuor own army since chances are random so you bury that giant gap with things that I mentioned. I don't believe it is a skillfull game design or fun for that matter considering you are only partially in charge of what happens. Strategy is about planning not rolling.

[bri]

Well there is a reason even best players need restarting their campaigns

Yes there is, it's called the asymetrical start. Some nations are fairly easy, some are somewhat difficult, and some are nigh impossible. No matter how good a player you are you're going to need some things to go your way early on as certain nations because you start in a pretty bad situation because that's the way the history lined up. Generally, though, those things are strategic (rivals, available allies, and the like) not due to the outcome of a single battle.

[Waking]

You repeat same statements, beside combat widh, for today I am done since time is short. But I'll try to adress You. First of all you can't explain a flaud mechanic with another flaud mechanic. You basically say that limited mountain combat widh is superior to any penalties a moutain with a fort can provide, which is absurd in itself.

Most common example is 300 spartans plus couple hundred axulilary forces they had. Limited combat widh works in favour of defenders and should not work in favour of attackers in rough terrain, that is anti strategy at its peak and so badly thought through that it is hard to believe. Second of all in all 2 of 3 cases I played eastern and as you mentioned bonuses don't overhelm in favour of Ottomans from military tech at same level. 3rd one was Karaman same tech group, with previusly mentioned circumstances, so once again tech had nothing to do.

So we have 2 flaud mechanics combat widh that is apparently working in favour of attackers and dice rolling, these 2 minimize this petty 14% even more since as I said -2 doesnt matter if you can role 1-9 and same for enemy disproportion can be multiple times bigger due to sheer rng.

And as I mentioned with mercs here is my essential point. In Ck II you buy mercs when you can AFFORD them, not when you are broke as ekhem. Money runs out? 350 one time loan from jews, than pay up or mercs disband/revolt against you. Done, you are fighting on minus cash? Lower morale for unpayed armies and provinces get hit with all kind of debufs. Wasting your army and spamming mercs is worst kind of element in EUIV that tries to cover flaud combat that you can't rely on.

And if there is some experienced player willing to argue RNG is skillbased he is more than welcome to make that statement.

If lucky nations are ironman exclusive I'll do so.

Once again you explain how it is, not why it is. Allies are unreliable because of bad programming, if they can fix them in one game they can in other. Look at Hoi 4 look at CK 2 RNG dicerolls are not required.

I also mentioned player was close to bancrupcy not in it, I know the debuffs, but before that debasing currency and all that stuff makes it possible to cheese strats like that and call it good plays. There is a reason AI goes into 10k loans, since it is so broken, that managing your country right doesnt really matter, you cheese mercs, than you win war with cheesed mercs and than you get your money back, raise repeat. Greeat design. And cherry on top rng rolls to make sure you'll overwhelm enemy to be certain to make "good engagement".

[bri]

Originally posted by Ultrix Prime:

Originally posted by bri:

Yes there is, it's called the asymetrical start.

Excellent point bri. In fact, one of the rather boring aspects of CK2 is that the starts lack asymmetry.

It's there, just nowhere near the same extreme plus you have more ability to ameliorate the powerful neighbor/overlord that wants your stuff part.

[Waking]

Asymetrical start shouldn't be achievement compatible. In CK II you can get random ruler stats, its important to restart to get high matrial most of the time that's all, even if you don't have it you can level it up fairly easy. In Eu IV you rererereroll the start untill favurable position, and you can be qualified for achievement on same basis. Problem and the difference is, that for example as Trebizond starting hostile with Ottomans you will never turn them back neutral, and starting neutral will take like 100 or more years with good management for them to be hostile, so also the start is so highly rng dependant? Thats a massive difference. This game proves itself to be one big diceroll, and people like it? Maybe thats why chests are so popular as microtransactions in so many games. People like to gamble on luck, but I prefer certainty or close to it, calculations over hopes. At least add some realistic mode, CK II has so many switches to disable or enable shattered retreat, movement lock, etc some ironman compatible some not, all implemented in game by devs, and Eu IV just keeps pumping out tragic DLC's without improving the very core of the game. I really don't get how same company can differ so much from game to game.

[Summercat]

Originally posted by Ultrix Prime:

Originally posted by bri:

They aren't meant to be frustrating

You're right. I said that poorly. I should have said, they're meant to be complex which in turn can be frustrating as one has to look at their math and tables and let it all sink in.

I believe that my mistake in all of this was a failure to realize that the only thing desired here was to say "EU4 is all random and there's no strategy" Had I realized that I would not have taken the time to address (and refute) every point made by the OP thinking it would be of benefit.

My bad in general.

You say that, but I (a self-admitted idiot), with thousand+ hours of EU4, learned some things from this thread.

Things that upon learning, I kinda smacked myself in the head and said "you idiot, that should have been OBVIOUS".

[Waking]

1. In EU4, your men not being engaged lose morale as well.

Makes sense just reading this very well made mechanic that wasn't ported to other games for a reason.

2. If you think RNG is truly just random luck, you should study statistics and probability and learn the truth.

RNG stands for Random number generator, so in its very essence it is random. And I am told I am wrong? I said player has at max 50% he can do himself rest is RNG. As I said dice rolls are from 0-9 for bouth sides mountain bonus is 2. I think it is easy to see clear and massive disproportion.

3. "This is *not* the CK2 era In this era, nations can and *DID* go deep into debt to finance their wars. Such a flexible and open banking system did not exist in the CK2 era"

Nice to call an exploit usually caused by wasting and loosing whole army and manpower due to poor management, a flexible system. Byzantium used mercenaries to great extend yet when money finished I'll tell you it didn't end up well. But hey in this game you have no Jews, you just borrow from inwisible entity there are so many ways you can prolong your - money it is crazy. And after spending all of that speculative money you end up getting it back in peace deal. Clearly a mechanic made to shadow the combat flaws.

Templars are another example, when you are in debt you don't go to war, he didn't arest them during major conflict?

Byzantines had mercenaries when they had money, and mercenaries rebelled when there were none. This is what I say, you should not be able to hire them in debt. Also mercenaries are very unrealistic working as a normal unit that is just more expensive, in reality there were mercenary bands. For example mercenrary Turks were defending Constantinopole in 1453.

4. In other words, a system of loans based upon an economy is worse than a system of loans by a one button click that is the same for everyone in the world? Perhaps stop and consider that for a moment.

It is superior since as a small nation without allies you are in position you are supposed to be in. There are memes force limit is just a number, and thats because it is. This limitations are just on paper and its sad. You implement mechanic and you don't balance it.

5. The Ottomans are *easy* and you lost because you fought bad battles as is always the case when one loses. Sometimes a bad battle is all there is but if the AI comes for you in the early game, the AI is right and knows more than you do.

It would be true if I would attack into mountains, unpayed my troops, had worse quality of troops minor numbers, incompetent general, and such.

When you defend in moutains, literall terrain any attacker would avoid and deemed stupid not only in CK II but even in tactical games such as TW series. Even there it is an important factor. If you have 30 k soldiers defending mountains, you tell me combat widh worked in favour of Ottomans attacking with 14k first? And my other not involved as you say 15k troops lose morale for sitting on my own controlled capital fort?

In WW2 breechloader guns were already a common fact, way easier to reload them, yet in HOI 4 terrain modifiers are right. Is it that hard to understand that most of games did it right, and there is one black sheep you are trying to defend no matter what?

Muzze loaded rifles on bouth sides, cavalry numbers on Ottoman side which should work against them, since cavalry in mountains is useless or close to it, charging uphill will lower the impact to neglitible force. I can call this game a strategy but it's an economic-policital one, certainly not military. This should be fixed.

6. Well it turns out ironman is incompatible with no lucky nations, so I don't know whwy you even suggest it.

7. We're talking the greatest empire at the time, the Ottomans, versus a weak shell of the ERE. Frankly, it should be *impossible* for Byzantium to win and they should *always* get crushed early on.

On history part this is absurd to read. In 1396 battle of Nikopolis would be won without any issues if the cooperation of command level amongst the european powers would be present, Serbians and Bulgarians were passive due to historical strife with Byzantines, the French and burgundians were arogant and ddin't listen to advice of local powers knowing the situation better. If not the organization it would be an easy walk. In EU IV nothing like that is taken into account, you command troops, so paradox tries to replace tactical errors that happend in real life with AI cheats and dice rolls. AI should be improved and not the player handicaped.

In 1402, literally 40 years before game start Turks lost battle of Ankara, their sultan was probably taken captive. And their army obliterated by Timur. Than we have disployal baylics causing problems and series of civil wars. And in 1444 victorious battle of Varna. All that chaos just somehow makes them immortals from the very begining? Not to mention famous Skanderberg and his victories during the games period. And you tell me about historical Ottoman superiority?
That's the problem with your thinking, there is no strategy involved, just spam mercs? Ottomans superior because of their army? At that time Janissaries were about 6 k in number? If Ottomans were winning early on it was due to their better command or opponents mistakes.
So why in EU IV having a bettter commander and better tactical position doesnt result in SAME reuslts as irl? Shouldn't this game aim for some realism? Nah give dicerolls, people buy % chance boxes in games, so they will buy % chance results.

8. Again you are mistaken, "CK 2 is not Eu IV", AND YET CK II IS DEFINITELY NOT HOI 4 yet in bouth games terrain plays same important role and certain unit types get worse on certain terrain. Admirable way to defend badly designed game but as you see argument doesnt hold up.

9. Eu IV combat is the most simplified compared to CK II and EU IV, there is literally no reason to call it complex. It is bad, and random, thats it. Important factors which determine army quality are overshadowed by randomness, combat widh not adjsuted in favour of terrain and defender is another great example. Same with agressive expansion they give fixed amounts, and it doesnt change, dynamic scaling numbers are to hard for EU IV devs? I can roll from 0-9 enemy aswell, that makes it 18 point difference, and yet 2 mountain penalty is in any way thought through? Made well? Realistic? or even sensible? I like that you try to explain everything, even when flawed, But I observe that in many games, even in TW there are people defending lazy number cheat buffs to AI and argue that improving AI for harder difficulties would make no sense. There is no reason to be defending something designed badly from the base. I know that sometimes it can be hard to imagine something else, but often change is for good. And especially in this game, I don't see people complaining about HoI-4 combat or even that much about CK II for that matter. In Hoi-4 it is player that wins every single war, I never have to rely on RNG and yes in Hoi4 there is combat width I know the system, yet there it is implemented in a way it works, since once again everything can be optimized by human actions. But as I mentioned gambling is addictive for some, which is hard to understand, but it is.

In this game I observe stagnancy, mechanics stay the same, and only new things are bad Dlcs that should be part of the game or never released at all. It seems it became a moneymilking farm, not place for improvements. Also I would like an anwser why skillbased competetive games such as TW pvp, CS GO, Starcraft, LoL have zero or close to zero RNG involved. Well RNG direcly excludes skill that's why. Eu IV combat inherently can't be skillbased as it is in significantly RNG based. You can try to argue other point, but I don't really think it is possible to advocate skill (micro and combat wise).

[Waking]

When I think about it World of Tanks is another great example of RNG game. Basically you have +/- 25% RNG on: where your shoot will hit or miss (25%), how big penetration value it will have(50%), and how much damage it will deal(50%).

All that added together excludes dominant human factor, thats why for such a big game it is it never had good esport and it got shut down (eleague) some time ago.

Only human skill is based on poisitioning, and map and tank knowledge, not the "battle" or shooting phase itsellf. Even if you are fighting in same vehicle with same stats etc. 1v1 enemy or you have up to 125% difference between based only on randomness.

As it is probably easy to see similar situation is present in EU IV. Your skill and knowledge can apply to macro play, very little in micro. And for that reason Hoi 4 multiplayer overshines all other Paradox games when it comes to skill, even tho I played Hoi 4 the shortest amount of time I can appreciate its good design, even small things like tanks not being good in mountains. Everything makes sense as it should.

[Waking]

Thats petty, cherrypicking and than secluding yourself with self righteousness. it seems you understand nothing and like to gamble with game and than call the results skill.

You can't adress arguments, such as esport ones because this is position not possible to defend you know it, and for some reason you stand in same opinion no matter what. Stubbornness? Maybe you achieved something or invested into the game, and you want to feel like it was you, that was the main factor? People like to feel in charge, even if it isn't the case.

Again cherrypicking I talked about Ottomans from 1396 up to 1446, your lack of historical knowledge doesnt excuse you from mispresenting my statements.

"Attacking the game". I mentioned good sides, and the bad siders which is combat, and since you are willing to discuss combat not other things we focus in this thread on it.

Arguments that are focused in their base on ad hominem will never make you look like winning an argument. You can say, learn the game, don't complain, comply not complain. Looking at things from different perspective is not possible? I have multitude of games to compare Eu IV to, I am sure you didn't play on EU IV all that time?

"No your wrong", and than trying to cut off the discussion to not further fall into logical traps. Not adressing any points you were wrong about? What about CK II is not EU IV? you made that statement, yet I said CK II is also not HoI IV yet bouth have better msotly skillbased combat. Who is trolling? I adress points, you dont. Emotional arguing without factual basis. And it is so common not unique, typical even. On most of forums.