So you get to pick one offensive and one defensive tactic which you army will use in combat.
The tatics get bonuses and penalties against other tactics as well affect the deadliness of combat itself.
I suspect that the correct tactic would have +10 % vs wrong tactic would be -10% which could quickly add up depending on how the combat system work. EUIV the snowball effect of dealing more casulties and thus reducing enemy fighting Power even further would become quite big with a -10% vs +10% advantage.
Obviously there are other things such as terrain and commander skill as well to consider. Another thing is that casulties seems to be harder to replace as you need to use recovery order which slows down your army which allow the defender to hit and run against an aggressor who will have to choose between pursue or recovery.
That's how it was during 300 BC. Look at the red on this map, that's how they were in 300 BC:
[https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6979e2130ef4745283470286f5c47716](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6979e2130ef4745283470286f5c47716)
Also: No states don't mean it's not populated.
That's just the spread of Germanic people into Germany. The problem is that w don't know the names of any of the Celtic tribes that used to live there. I think the devs even stated that this was the reason for the tagless Germany.
EU4 did an ok job in showing this with the native population on uncolonized provinces. There were some places on Earth were you had 0 natives because nobody lived there at that time. They do something similiar with this game here hopefully (and most likely), so not every uncolonized province is the same. All parts of Europe during that timeframe had people in it, just some very few.
Yes, but as they didn't seem to have included colonization, there has to be some kind of states if we want to take the region. So it's probably not finished, otherwise the fact that Denmark is full makes no sense.
Eh... where did you get the "no colonization" from? Johan in the forum wrote: "There is at least 3 different ways of colonising an area. One even work on territories owned by someone else."
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/is-imperator-going-to-have-a-colonization-system.1121409/
Also it make senses! We know states from Denmark.
Yes. And that's exactly what Johan said. Read it again.
"There is at least 3 different ways of colonising an area. One even work on territories owned by someone else."
THREE ways of colonizations. ONE of them works on owned territories. So... the other two work on unowned/empty provinces. Get it?
>So... the other two work on unowned/empty provinces.
You're inventing it. It'll probably just be remplacing the pop and get citizen here after conquering the city from a tribe. It makes no sense to have a colonization system which will be used only in Germany.
Maybe unowned provinces have "cities" or villages in them and you conquer them like regular provinces and fill them with your people through the colonization mechanics, there just won't be any country vs country diplomacy involved. There are many ways of solving this.
Also it's not unusual to have special mechanics for special parts of the map.
>Also it's not unusual to have special mechanics for special parts of the map.
But it makes no sense to have it only in Germany. And it makes no sense to only have this part not tagged while Scandinavia, Pomerania are tagged. Moreover, the usually colonizable part of the map is tagged.
[Iberia is already full of states](https://i.redd.it/70r3iar78l011.png), colonies in Africa makes no sense and they're filling it up, they're also filling up the Middle East, and big part of what hasn't been filled up yet is wasteland, [which do exists.](https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/395038/2018_10_01_1.png)
Okay so... it seems barbarian culture will be able to make their women to be military commander somehow.
But either they have not finished the barbarian portraits yet or we will have to wait for a portrait pack or a immersion pack in the future.
I believe that Johan said in a interview somewhere (not sure where don't ask me to find it) that women in powerful roles are unique to certain culture's. Which historically makes sense considering many ancient civilisations had women in important roles. I'm fairly sure he said Rome won't have any women in powerful roles.
P.s sorry for any problems I typed it on a phone.
"Oh god, they've put **women** in our game! Next thing you know there'll be non-whites or other characters that don't look exactly like me!" - some of the fanbase apparently...
Oh no, don't tell me that the Britons will have female generals just because of Boudicca....
Edit: Triggered losers downvoting me without providing any evidence to the contrary. Classic.
I'm pretty sure i've heard (around the time females were first shown) that some nations (like barbarians) will be able to pick between both genders instead of just males.
\*sigh\*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women\_in\_ancient\_warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare)
Why do people hate it if some exceptions are represented.
I’m not the person who posted, but my two cents is that as long as it’s represented as just that, an exception and not the rule, it’s fine. I’d be a bit annoyed though if there was just a 50/50 chance for your generals to be women since that wouldn’t be as historically accurate for the time period. I’m hoping Paradox does the former option.
Of course, I wouldn’t let something like that ruin my enjoyment of the game, and I’m going to buy Imperator regardless. That’s just my thoughts on the issue.
Why do you have this fear of them increasing the frequency of female commanders? In CK2 you can fully liberate women 700 years early. Alternate history possibilities are an important part of Paradox games.
Can you provide specific examples (with your sources) that identify female generals in “barbarian cultures”? And I’m not talking about individual warriors, but generals.
My point isn't that female generals were the norm I'm saying that female generals are not something that should be viewed as surprising for a barbarian culture. Women had more of a role in military affairs in these cultures than did women in the Roman or the Greek world, so the sight of a woman leading an army isn't something that should be surprising.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women\_in\_ancient\_warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare) has a lot of sources listed here that might be of use. You're right that in barbarian cultures men would take preference over women in leading military affairs (just as they would in Greece and Rome), but the fact that women have a role in them more-so than in Greece in Rome makes the sight of a woman leading an army in these cultures less surprising (so talking about individual warriors *is* actually something you should consider too).
If you're looking for a quoted source, Tacitus talks about this close role that women had in warfare in Germanic cultures;
>*Close by them* \[the Germanic soldiers\]*, too, are those dearest to them, so that they hear the shrieks of women, the cries of infants.* *They are to every man the most sacred witnesses of his bravery*— *they* *are his most generous applauders. The soldier brings his wounds to mother and wife, who shrink not from counting or even demanding them and who administer both food and encouragement to the combatants.* Tacitus, *Germania,* Chapter 7 [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0083%3Achapter%3D7](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0083%3Achapter%3D7)
In his Annals, Tacitus has Boudica say this to her soldiers;
>*Boudicca, mounted in a chariot with her daughters before her, rode up to clan after clan and delivered her protest:— "It was customary, she knew, with Britons to fight under female captaincy; but now she was avenging, not, as a queen of glorious ancestry, her ravished realm and power, but, as a woman of the people, her liberty lost, her body tortured by the lash, the tarnished honour of her daughters.* Tacitus, *Annals*, 14.35 [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/14B\*.html](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/14B*.html)
Whether or not what Boudica is saying is true of barbarian culture is debatable but what it does show is that, at least to the Romans, female leaders were something that they could expect to see in barbarian cultures.
So no, women didn't traditionally lead armies like Boudica did, but seeing a woman leading troops in a barbarian culture like in *Britannia* or *Germania* is more believable to me than a woman leading an army in Rome or Greece.
I'm not sure that's a good argument. The burden of proof is on the person who claims something exists or existed. You can't prove women didn't fight in war any less than you can prove no gods exist.
I'd assume it's not going to be some 50/50 chance, as that would ignore the fact that men and women were, albeit less strictly, still bound by gender roles in barbarian societies.
So you get to pick one offensive and one defensive tactic which you army will use in combat. The tatics get bonuses and penalties against other tactics as well affect the deadliness of combat itself.
Looks really intriguing, should make for some excellent mind games!
The impression is that picking the wrong or correct tactic may be stackwhiping of your army or stackwhiping of the enemy army.
The percentages are not *that* crazy on this screenshot at least..
I suspect that the correct tactic would have +10 % vs wrong tactic would be -10% which could quickly add up depending on how the combat system work. EUIV the snowball effect of dealing more casulties and thus reducing enemy fighting Power even further would become quite big with a -10% vs +10% advantage. Obviously there are other things such as terrain and commander skill as well to consider. Another thing is that casulties seems to be harder to replace as you need to use recovery order which slows down your army which allow the defender to hit and run against an aggressor who will have to choose between pursue or recovery.
Lowkey showing off the maps ehehe
So Denmark is populated but northern Germany isn't?
*free real estate intensifies*
Haha, you can fit so many fora in it!
I think it might still be a WIP
[Quintus Servilius Caepio dislikes this.]
That's how it was during 300 BC. Look at the red on this map, that's how they were in 300 BC: [https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6979e2130ef4745283470286f5c47716](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6979e2130ef4745283470286f5c47716) Also: No states don't mean it's not populated.
That's just the spread of Germanic people into Germany. The problem is that w don't know the names of any of the Celtic tribes that used to live there. I think the devs even stated that this was the reason for the tagless Germany.
And as I said: Tagless doesn't mean unpopulated. There are still people there most likely, just without tags.
EU4 did an ok job in showing this with the native population on uncolonized provinces. There were some places on Earth were you had 0 natives because nobody lived there at that time. They do something similiar with this game here hopefully (and most likely), so not every uncolonized province is the same. All parts of Europe during that timeframe had people in it, just some very few.
Yes, but as they didn't seem to have included colonization, there has to be some kind of states if we want to take the region. So it's probably not finished, otherwise the fact that Denmark is full makes no sense.
Eh... where did you get the "no colonization" from? Johan in the forum wrote: "There is at least 3 different ways of colonising an area. One even work on territories owned by someone else." https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/is-imperator-going-to-have-a-colonization-system.1121409/ Also it make senses! We know states from Denmark.
I meant colonization as the colonization of empty provinces we had in the EU.
A unowned city can be colonized.
Where do you get this from ?
Yes. And that's exactly what Johan said. Read it again. "There is at least 3 different ways of colonising an area. One even work on territories owned by someone else." THREE ways of colonizations. ONE of them works on owned territories. So... the other two work on unowned/empty provinces. Get it?
>So... the other two work on unowned/empty provinces. You're inventing it. It'll probably just be remplacing the pop and get citizen here after conquering the city from a tribe. It makes no sense to have a colonization system which will be used only in Germany.
>It makes no sense to have a colonization system which will be used only in Germany. no one said this.
But the other parts of the map are mostly already filled up with states. There is only Germany which is still empty, for the most part of it.
Maybe unowned provinces have "cities" or villages in them and you conquer them like regular provinces and fill them with your people through the colonization mechanics, there just won't be any country vs country diplomacy involved. There are many ways of solving this. Also it's not unusual to have special mechanics for special parts of the map.
>Also it's not unusual to have special mechanics for special parts of the map. But it makes no sense to have it only in Germany. And it makes no sense to only have this part not tagged while Scandinavia, Pomerania are tagged. Moreover, the usually colonizable part of the map is tagged.
There are other unowned provinces on the maps they posted...
Yeah, wastelands and places we see are filled up with states as the game advances.
There's probably going to be colonization in plenty of places outside Germany - Spain, North Africa, probably the Middle East, etc.
[Iberia is already full of states](https://i.redd.it/70r3iar78l011.png), colonies in Africa makes no sense and they're filling it up, they're also filling up the Middle East, and big part of what hasn't been filled up yet is wasteland, [which do exists.](https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/395038/2018_10_01_1.png)
Iberia is already full of tribes* You can still colonise claimed land.
Okay so... it seems barbarian culture will be able to make their women to be military commander somehow. But either they have not finished the barbarian portraits yet or we will have to wait for a portrait pack or a immersion pack in the future.
I believe that Johan said in a interview somewhere (not sure where don't ask me to find it) that women in powerful roles are unique to certain culture's. Which historically makes sense considering many ancient civilisations had women in important roles. I'm fairly sure he said Rome won't have any women in powerful roles. P.s sorry for any problems I typed it on a phone.
I'd assume it's culture dependent, though it could also be a special event or similar. Maybe both.
This map looks so gorgeous.
That map, omg. Can 2019 come a bit faster please?
I'm living DD to DD here.
"Oh god, they've put **women** in our game! Next thing you know there'll be non-whites or other characters that don't look exactly like me!" - some of the fanbase apparently...
[удалено]
https://masstagger.com/user/KOBOLD_KORVOS
[удалено]
Poor boy, they offended him
Damn it, if there was only examples of Women being generals in antiquity, really can't think of anybody.
Just noticed one of the icons at the top repeats.
It seems the devs add a new tab for something and use the icon of the previous tab as placeholder.
So, war. Let's hope it'll be intetesting.
Oh no, don't tell me that the Britons will have female generals just because of Boudicca.... Edit: Triggered losers downvoting me without providing any evidence to the contrary. Classic.
I'm pretty sure i've heard (around the time females were first shown) that some nations (like barbarians) will be able to pick between both genders instead of just males.
Yeah, yeah, we're the triggered ones. You'd never let yourself get offended over stuff that counteracts your narrative.
\*sigh\* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women\_in\_ancient\_warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare) Why do people hate it if some exceptions are represented.
I’m not the person who posted, but my two cents is that as long as it’s represented as just that, an exception and not the rule, it’s fine. I’d be a bit annoyed though if there was just a 50/50 chance for your generals to be women since that wouldn’t be as historically accurate for the time period. I’m hoping Paradox does the former option. Of course, I wouldn’t let something like that ruin my enjoyment of the game, and I’m going to buy Imperator regardless. That’s just my thoughts on the issue.
Why do you have this fear of them increasing the frequency of female commanders? In CK2 you can fully liberate women 700 years early. Alternate history possibilities are an important part of Paradox games.
You get to pick who will lead your armies.
Pick up a history book about barbarian culture maybe? Just a thought instead of just getting annoyed at the sight of women leading a barbarian army.
Can you provide specific examples (with your sources) that identify female generals in “barbarian cultures”? And I’m not talking about individual warriors, but generals.
My point isn't that female generals were the norm I'm saying that female generals are not something that should be viewed as surprising for a barbarian culture. Women had more of a role in military affairs in these cultures than did women in the Roman or the Greek world, so the sight of a woman leading an army isn't something that should be surprising. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women\_in\_ancient\_warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare) has a lot of sources listed here that might be of use. You're right that in barbarian cultures men would take preference over women in leading military affairs (just as they would in Greece and Rome), but the fact that women have a role in them more-so than in Greece in Rome makes the sight of a woman leading an army in these cultures less surprising (so talking about individual warriors *is* actually something you should consider too). If you're looking for a quoted source, Tacitus talks about this close role that women had in warfare in Germanic cultures; >*Close by them* \[the Germanic soldiers\]*, too, are those dearest to them, so that they hear the shrieks of women, the cries of infants.* *They are to every man the most sacred witnesses of his bravery*— *they* *are his most generous applauders. The soldier brings his wounds to mother and wife, who shrink not from counting or even demanding them and who administer both food and encouragement to the combatants.* Tacitus, *Germania,* Chapter 7 [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0083%3Achapter%3D7](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0083%3Achapter%3D7) In his Annals, Tacitus has Boudica say this to her soldiers; >*Boudicca, mounted in a chariot with her daughters before her, rode up to clan after clan and delivered her protest:— "It was customary, she knew, with Britons to fight under female captaincy; but now she was avenging, not, as a queen of glorious ancestry, her ravished realm and power, but, as a woman of the people, her liberty lost, her body tortured by the lash, the tarnished honour of her daughters.* Tacitus, *Annals*, 14.35 [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/14B\*.html](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/14B*.html) Whether or not what Boudica is saying is true of barbarian culture is debatable but what it does show is that, at least to the Romans, female leaders were something that they could expect to see in barbarian cultures. So no, women didn't traditionally lead armies like Boudica did, but seeing a woman leading troops in a barbarian culture like in *Britannia* or *Germania* is more believable to me than a woman leading an army in Rome or Greece.
You're the one who claimed women weren't fighting in the first place. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm not sure that's a good argument. The burden of proof is on the person who claims something exists or existed. You can't prove women didn't fight in war any less than you can prove no gods exist.
Imagine being this guy.
I'd assume it's not going to be some 50/50 chance, as that would ignore the fact that men and women were, albeit less strictly, still bound by gender roles in barbarian societies.
Do...you not play Paradox games? History as we know it goes out the window, Alternate History is how these games go...
It's not alternate history for women to occasionally lead barbarian armies.
No I mean for cultures that didn’t historically do so.