"Camp followers provide food" oh, Dear Lambert... that's not all they provide. They keep the morale up too!
@DaDunge
2 ай бұрын
They should add a delayed population growth too.
@fish5671
2 ай бұрын
huh ?
@Aoderic
2 ай бұрын
They would oblige them, to make them happy in little ways...😉
@Lhiet
2 ай бұрын
@@fish5671 prostitutes
@BIGluisluis
2 ай бұрын
March to the sound of Guns is a mechanic in March of the Eagles that does the exact thing we see in this Tinto Talks, good to see you again MotE xD
@tranium67
2 ай бұрын
The “ignore zone of control” research is actually historical. Napoleon wasnt too big into sieges, he mainly just attacked armies. Hence why its called “napoleonic warfare.” I like it personally, especially since its gonna be by the end of the game.
@appropinquo3236
2 ай бұрын
I don't see a problem with the advance, I think forts should still have an effect like increased attrition for armies within fort ZOC though so even if you choose to ignore them at one moment you still have to deal with them eventually.
@Mortarion-xt9wp
2 ай бұрын
I agree. Maybe add some sort of supply line disruption by the fortresses and it might be acceptable for the hardliners
@jalleonothing5946
2 ай бұрын
So the ignoring zone of control and supply aspects of the game will certainly change the entire dynamic of warfare for that age when research begins to complete. You will still need to take forts to get control but you can begin to have specialised armies for combat and others for sieges. Also the supply armies will require more troops to guard them to prevent easier wipes.
@Lord_Lambert
2 ай бұрын
Oh I get that its historical, no argument there... I just think its bad for gameplay
@onggarorynbassar5378
2 ай бұрын
@@Lord_Lambert it changes gameplay for MP players in lategame. Imagine front warfare with millions of troops not fighting in single location but in fronts. Lots of maneuver opportunities
@gabbel4103
2 ай бұрын
This game is going to be the crown jewel of PDX and Johan
@PeterP_
2 ай бұрын
Imperator walked, so EU5 can RUN!
@engrammi
2 ай бұрын
@@kirilld6206 inb4 China bans the game because it will portray China as conquered by the Mongols.
@StoovTV
2 ай бұрын
I'd say I loved about 95% of that. It does kind of suck that zone of control stops being a thing but isn't that... Historical? Just like the ol' line up and shoot vs guerilla tactics eh?
@tranium67
2 ай бұрын
Yeh it is historical
@wotnograpefruit
2 ай бұрын
"Historical" in the sense that by the Napoleonic era, armies were big enough that they could screen a hostile fortress with what was now only a small fraction of their total force. So if it took e.g. 20,000 men to screen a fortress, that was now a tenth of your army in 1800, not half or more like in 1600.
@RealPeoplePerson
2 ай бұрын
Good opportunity to implement the great Incan network of food storehouses (Qullqa), reducing armies' need to deprive locals of their food, and perhaps provide a greater buffer in times of bad harvests.
@Bleilock1
2 ай бұрын
That sounds like dlc lol
@PeterP_
2 ай бұрын
I glanced at the supply depot portion, but I think that may be one of those "tag/culture unique advances". Supply depot mechanics is already part of the game (along with food logistics), so I imagine it's not too difficult for Tinto to include that as part of base game using existing mechanics. I think it'd be implemented as Incan unique depot that can be set up in your territory during peace time (educated guess).
@robert-janthuis9927
2 ай бұрын
With ZoC in EU4 it is not so much the AI ignoring the rules as much as there being some rules that allow for situations which the AI is just much more capable of exploiting then a human player. The rules were a mess so you as the player might not be aware of an opportunity, but the AI, by virtue of how its pathfinding works would be able to find that opportunity. If the roles were reversed you would also be able to do so. The result of this is however of course that it seems like the AI is cheating because well, you as the player might not see the opportunity the AI does.
@draxil42
2 ай бұрын
I was with you on zoc, until now. I think the logistics means losing zoc makes less difference, as you need to take supply lines anyway.
@alligator94gaming2
2 ай бұрын
I enjoy how they are drawing mechanics from all of there game series and many they should make a second march of the eagles
@goosegod6
2 ай бұрын
Actually, tied into the logistics system they could implement road networks and carts taking resources between depots. We start with dirt roads, then stone, and later towards end game we can upgrade to train maybe. The first working locomotive was made in early 1800s but that might be too close to end date to matter much. Regardless, there may be situations where lines of supply like in HOI may not be ideal in EU5, especially in areas like the HRE. Oh and also, minor rivers can be used for supply, even if they will only be pixels on the map and not proper rivers, like the big ones, they can be used to boost the 2 tile range thing for supply. Idk, they can play with a lot of things to make supply organic. What I would love is that all these things will have representation on the map, like visually seeing carriages transporting goods. And in general other such details on the map as you interact with the world around you.
@McHobotheBobo
2 ай бұрын
Many areas would have stone roads from jump, basically the entire former Roman empire
@goosegod6
2 ай бұрын
@@McHobotheBobo yeah I wanted to say that but the comment was getting long lol. Yeah it's perfectly fine that some places will have stone roads already, especially Italy and former Roman empire settled places, and wherever else makes sense historically.
@McHobotheBobo
2 ай бұрын
@goosegod6 Yeah Persian Empire, between major Chinese cities, and maybe the Ganjetic plain but I'm not as familiar with those regions
@DaDunge
2 ай бұрын
26:45 I just hope that navies don't work like floating armies any more. The whole "You both have navies in the north sea, so now your navies are in combat" thing has to go. The Dutch defeated the spanish at sea because they weren't stupid enough to give the spanish the fight they were looking for.
@theodorepinnock1517
2 ай бұрын
I don't like a blanket 12-month reassignment lock as a solution to teleporting generals. There should rather be a travel time system, where a general can be reassigned at will, but will not actually arrive at and take command of the army until a certain amount of time based on the distance between the army and their previous location has passed.
@sullenskulls9709
2 ай бұрын
I agree. The concept of envoy travel time exists in EU4, to simulate ease/time of travel. Surely, using something akin to that as a delay to assignment, as well as some negative impact to morale (which recovers over time) for assigning a new leader to an army. The impact could be reduced by MIL skill, or even some kind of reputation mechanic, based on previous battle history, if previously assigned to a different army. This would mean that switching leaders around would not be good for you militarily, but you have the option, should you choose to.
@tuckersmoak6632
2 ай бұрын
this makes me even more excited. logistics were something I always disliked in eu4 due to the lack of them. marching around everywhere and instantly battle always irrated me. yet I still put in 6,000 hrs into the game lol
@prnghats
2 ай бұрын
This dev dairy/tinto talks makes keep thinking imperator: rome was a test bed for this game...
@prnghats
2 ай бұрын
I do hope maintaining your supply depots with supply armies will create the need to protect your supply lines lest your enemy cuts your supply off and/or steals the supply (can't wait to see it in action).
@matthewbird1067
2 ай бұрын
Very much taking later IR as a base, improved with Ship/Supply Depots. Good choice!
@Lord_Lambert
2 ай бұрын
Agreed!
@swedichboy1000
2 ай бұрын
3:22 It makes me wonder how countries with fewer pops will be able to besiege larger foes, will an OPM even be viable in the early game?
@Lord_Lambert
2 ай бұрын
I feel like 2 adjacent ULMs (Unique Location Minors) at war, both with a fortress, will kind of be invincible to each other. Sieging looks to be much harder, I dont know how ULMs will function
@Deepstinkt
2 ай бұрын
This seems to me like in order to maintain sieges you need to maintain and resupply your supply hubs or your army starves, unless it is very small that is. Why not just make the Zone of control disrupt the speed of your army and make them lose food faster (raids on the supply train), this encourages you to not just bee line for key targets without horribly limiting any movement.
@McHobotheBobo
2 ай бұрын
I like a lot of what you're saying, but ZoC is dope
@Roman-zj5jp
2 ай бұрын
Instead of fully ignoring the zone of control, they could just make it that a zone of control becomes nullified if the fort is besieged by a sufficient force.
@McHobotheBobo
2 ай бұрын
"By holding out baits, he keeps him on the march; then with a body of picked men he lies in wait for him" - Sun Tzu: The Art of War (chapter 5, verse 20)
@prnghats
2 ай бұрын
There would be a penalty for starving your vassal with your army... like them getting disloyal or rebelling... well, I hope there will be. XD
@galdorofnihelm6798
2 ай бұрын
I wish some form of supply lines would be in the game, that's the main reasons forts were important back in the day as you couldn't run supplies past one if you didn't take it. While they seem to have a very simple one, I wish there was something more direct of supplies that actively fed your troops, kinda like Hoi4. It would make attacking much harder as it was historically, as protecting your supplies were vital, while defending would have a major advantage.
@MartocticvsCG
2 ай бұрын
I'm also a bit sceptical about the fort ZoC bypass advancement, but I guess it is fairly historical... I could get on board with it more if it could scale somehow depending on fort level... low level forts would be completely irrelevant by that time so should definitely be ignored by an army with that advancement. Modern high level forts would still pose a challenge and risk to an army if left un-taken, and Wellington would not leave such forts to interfere with his supply lines, but Napoleon was a bit different in that regard, so again, historical.
@safs3098
2 ай бұрын
I wish Zone of Control wasn’t so strict and allowed Cavalry to pass so that Raid Tactics would be a thing. And scorched earth to remove food in provinces to prevent enemy supplying from your provinces
@manaintolerantmage
2 ай бұрын
Something something, algorithm something
@skyepark1464
2 ай бұрын
If you can supply with your navy, I think we need rivers passable by navys
@roysobak1421
2 ай бұрын
Add travel time to generals and make them less effective upon arrival until they can get a proper hold on the army, instead of "you cant remove your general for 12 months cuz reasons".
@grahamrich9956
2 ай бұрын
Maybe a middle ground on the ignore zoc thing could be to have it be ignored if the fort is under siege by a friendly army, which happened a lot in that period. I know of one specific case in the Italian Campaign where Napoleon left a skeleton crew on a siege to prevent the fort from messing with him, and then moved to counter armies coming through the mountain passes in attempt to relieve the siege.
@randomperson6988
2 ай бұрын
I really hope supply depots can take from each other. That would add a lot of strategic decision making in how we design our supply line and the possibility of cutting your enemies supply line
@jogryning
2 ай бұрын
rahhhhhhh the hypeeee
@LuckystrikeNQ
2 ай бұрын
Hype is real!
@alexanderiles4428
2 ай бұрын
I like the naval aspect, think about England as the Angevin empire. As England you have Normandy and Aquitaine, possibly Brittany too. You can therefore use your navies to supply depos and then from there supply Seiges and armies through logistics forces. You'll be able to advance from Calais, the Rhine if you've got military access and Gascony while keeping the core of Aquitaine safe. Once you get to the Med Italy, Spain and Southern Germany will be open to you.
@prnghats
2 ай бұрын
I agree, even without an MP I would want a mod to remove the zone of control advancement in single player
@goosegod6
2 ай бұрын
This is actually amazing.
@benismann
2 ай бұрын
8:34 - box select - S S S S S S - move command - arrive - merge. "March to the sound of guns" this is march of the eagles thing lol. What a coincidence that i watched some stuff on that game yesterday.
@luckylmj
2 ай бұрын
I actually don't mind having the ignoring zone of control for napoleonic warfare. You'll still have to siege down forts to be able to not take stupid amounts of attrition from supply loss so I think it balances out.
@SuperJJAlexander
2 ай бұрын
When the AI keeps microing a thousand little armies all around your lands, of course I want to have an AI deal with that shit. So yeah, I want to be able to keep just a few armies under my control and assign AI objectives to the rest of my armies.
@Vulcanus3231
2 ай бұрын
Bypassing zone of control is fine if it doesn’t bypass the actual fort. This should basically make the player build out huge maginot line fort systems in order to block an enemy from moving.
@ArcticKnight98
2 ай бұрын
So complex :O I'll die so much rip
@redbeard5939
2 ай бұрын
I kind of like the late game ability to bypass zone of control. I get that it could drastically shift the flow of game play, but, to me, that should be something that happens in the age of revolutions, drastic change. Call me a heretic, though, because, personally, I wouldn't mind if particularly amazing generals or certain horde armies could use a similar ability throughout the game.
@McHobotheBobo
2 ай бұрын
Right? The game changing at the end is a good reason to play through the whole thing! Like Frog Fractions!
@basvriese1934
2 ай бұрын
If you won't be able to reinforce outside of your owned territories this will be a massive buff for England
@prnghats
2 ай бұрын
Assuming the Horse Archers and Steppe Horde Militia have the same capacity I believe their capacity is 0.4 each... so x4 of what they consume (0.1) each month.
@basvriese1934
2 ай бұрын
Curious wether you can also raid food from enemy locations with your armies
@SuperJJAlexander
2 ай бұрын
Maybe they could change the "ignore forts" thing to only affect your forts that have been occupied by the enemy.
@Gurbuyten1146
2 ай бұрын
Nice video dude! :)
@Lord_Lambert
2 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it
@alexanderiles4428
2 ай бұрын
Let's go!!
@nuxx_1383
2 ай бұрын
I disagree on your thoughts about "Ignore Zone of Control". It just makes sense that you can pursue an retreating Army after defeating it and not having to siege 4 Forts to finally have your battle of Austerlitz after defeating the Austrians already in Ulm. Additionally moving behind Enemy lines is a Huge gamble because you are leaving your supplylines behind and live of the Land that you maybe occupy. Forts will still have Impact on Supplylines so not taking them and immediately moving to the enemys capital is suicide. Plus with 400 Years of Forts being important the last 100 can be quite refreshing, if the AI isnt insanely stupid and abandons its supplylines immediately.
@Ericshadowblade
2 ай бұрын
Was really hoping for sieges to work on attritioning men and supplies away rather than the dice rolls of something happening
@Lord_Lambert
2 ай бұрын
It feels like it applies on both. Apparently you will be attritting men even if you are fully supplied.
@benismann
2 ай бұрын
i hope garrisons will make more of an impact than in eu4 where they're only really relevant if they're below 100 or you're assaulting the fort itself
@Einulf_
2 ай бұрын
I wonder if the zone of control thing really just applies to the zone around it like in EU4. That would mean you would want to build more forts to force the enemy to enter, i might be wrong but i totally agree that its stupid to have a tech just instantly nullify forts.
@Alex_Fahey
2 ай бұрын
That does sound like a cool idea to force a shift into heavy fortifications with star fortresses along the border. However, I don't think that is what Johan was describing. It sounds like this technology completely shuts down the zone of control mechanic allowing Napoleonic warfare armies to ignore forts and walk right through defended provinces. Although, logistical concerns will force the player/AI to siege down those border provinces anyway.
@safs3098
2 ай бұрын
A better idea would be to remove the barriers from ZoC, let armies pass if they choose. BUT cut off supply lines, so that the most they could stay in your lands is the amount of food they can carry, then back off to their home or else starve.
@Einulf_
2 ай бұрын
@@safs3098 i like this, you should post that in the forum post!
@Einulf_
2 ай бұрын
@@Alex_Fahey That makes sense to me.
@safs3098
2 ай бұрын
@@Einulf_ I did, but didn’t get noticed, maybe a post later
@vattghern257
2 ай бұрын
Płock is pronunced: Pwotzk Paradox made a little spell mistake with putting L instead of Ł
@Lord_Lambert
2 ай бұрын
...polish is wild 😜
@matteorossi1172
2 ай бұрын
What does "ignore zone of control" mean?
@Lord_Lambert
2 ай бұрын
A zone of control is the locations surrounding a fort, so the location the fort is on and every location adjacent to it. Any enemy army that enters one of those locations has only 3 options; stay where they are, retreat the way they came, or move onto the fort. Removing that restriction means forts will just act like any other location when it comes to army movement, which I dislike intensely.
@ADobbin1
Ай бұрын
Because EU4's attrition system wasn't annoying enough.
@swedichboy1000
2 ай бұрын
I wish there was other options for getting food from occupied provinces other than stealing them, lets say you bought them instead, and thus dont embitter the local populace.
@coldrage20t8
2 ай бұрын
I don't know forts don't seem very useful lol like put them in province caps and that's it
@alexisdespland4939
2 ай бұрын
ah i just want to pet the horsies.
@wollebay
2 ай бұрын
Lambert spends half a minute wondering what a term might mean only to find out in the very next sentence..... Otherwise very cool!
@swedichboy1000
2 ай бұрын
21:54 Isent that quite the dumb design then? If it is a gamble if the siege will succed or not, then it can either last longer than your food supply or not. That just fucks your entire food strategy up regardless of your planning. Just have some fucking tangibility, like "It will fall within 10-30 days" or something.
@Lord_Lambert
2 ай бұрын
Nah, I disagree with that. I dont think having a guaranteed end date for your siege, even with wiggle room, like it is in CK2/3/Vic2 is good design, and I do think this semi random system we first got in EU4 is a big step up, as much as it may infuriate at times.
@swedichboy1000
2 ай бұрын
@@Lord_Lambert Fair enough, im just reserved on how food & supply will work in a practical manner with the randomness.
Пікірлер: 97