|
Would love to get some discussion going on army composition, I feel semi-lost at the moment.
From what I've read in EU4 wiki and on the forums, it seems that the most basic idea is to fill up your combat width with infrantry+cavalry, then have 50% of your combat width as artillery behind that (since you can't have more than 50% active ART). Most people also seem to agree that CAV is too expensive and falls off too quickly, so you want very little CAV, some people saying as few as 2 or possible 4 regiments per stack, just for flanking.
Now, this seems very logical to me. The problem, however, is that combat width is actually very big. The BASE combat width is 15 (so with 0 military tech outside of mountains and forests). This means that an army, even in the early game, should be composed of 13 INF, 2 CAV and 7 ART. But that's at military tech 1, by the time you get ART, you will already have a bonus to combat width, so you need even more than that, say 18 INF, 2 CAV and 10 ART if you have 20 combat width. This gives you a 30 man stack, at a point in the game where you will very rarely find provinces which won't give you attrition for such a number. Hell, I'm in 1600 right now in my ottoman game, and with 15 base combat width, I have 30 combat width. That's 4 CAV, 26 INF and 15 ART, giving a stack of 45, which I can't even put in my own capital without getting attrition.
How do you guys handle this issue? Do you keep smaller armies and merge them together during combat and simply eat attrition while fighting, or do you allow yourself to stay below your combat width? I find it risky to stay below combat width unless I know the terrain favors it, since it really sucks to have ART placed in the front row...
|
I'm not a point where I could say, I've been using quite small armies with probably too much cav in them so far.
A question, in land battles the shock value of a general is of great value, but is it the same for admirals, or is fire skill as important? I'd assume naval vessels use the fire more than land forces.
|
If its anything like EU3 cavalry reigns supreme in the first 100 years or so. You get as much cavalry in your stacks as you can support for these early armies. Later when cannons arrive you can manage with a slow transition since early cannons are still inferior to cavalry heavy armies.
The big change comes with the midgame advanced units (tech 15-16 in EU3). These favor a much more infantry and cannon heavy composition, so now you need to really consider your formation bonusses. Cavalry is still strong, but infantry has all but caught up, and cannons provide second row firepower that is invaluable in larger battles. That being said, cannons are still not as strong as regular infantry or cavalry, so using them in the front row is a waste.
Late game cavalry becomes useless for anything but flanking. 2 units in each stack does the trick. Cannons are by far the most important part of your stacks at this point, and having a 50/50 distribution af INF/CAN is not unreasonable.
My strategy is usually to start with armies of 1/3 CAV or more depending on econ. Then in the midgame go for a 1:4 ratio of cannons and cavalry to infantry, but still have stacks without cannons. Then I slowly mix in more and more cannons with a final composition of 1 cannon for each 2 infantry.
|
On August 21 2013 16:50 Tobberoth wrote:
Would love to get some discussion going on army composition, I feel semi-lost at the moment.
From what I've read in EU4 wiki and on the forums, it seems that the most basic idea is to fill up your combat width with infrantry+cavalry, then have 50% of your combat width as artillery behind that (since you can't have more than 50% active ART). Most people also seem to agree that CAV is too expensive and falls off too quickly, so you want very little CAV, some people saying as few as 2 or possible 4 regiments per stack, just for flanking.
Now, this seems very logical to me. The problem, however, is that combat width is actually very big. The BASE combat width is 15 (so with 0 military tech outside of mountains and forests). This means that an army, even in the early game, should be composed of 13 INF, 2 CAV and 7 ART. But that's at military tech 1, by the time you get ART, you will already have a bonus to combat width, so you need even more than that, say 18 INF, 2 CAV and 10 ART if you have 20 combat width. This gives you a 30 man stack, at a point in the game where you will very rarely find provinces which won't give you attrition for such a number. Hell, I'm in 1600 right now in my ottoman game, and with 15 base combat width, I have 30 combat width. That's 4 CAV, 26 INF and 15 ART, giving a stack of 45, which I can't even put in my own capital without getting attrition.
How do you guys handle this issue? Do you keep smaller armies and merge them together during combat and simply eat attrition while fighting, or do you allow yourself to stay below your combat width? I find it risky to stay below combat width unless I know the terrain favors it, since it really sucks to have ART placed in the front row...
If it's like EU3, it is rarely worth it to eat attrition. Your ideal army should be just below the attrition limit, and ideally consist of a frontline which is the size of the enemy frontline + 4, and the appropriate number of artillery behind it. Your army doesn't have to win some kind of beauty contest, it should win a war, and you don't win a war if half your soldiers starve to death. Have stacks that comfortably fit the attrition limits. If the enemy has larger stacks, either let them attrition themselves to death, or team up 2 stacks of yours for that battle, and immediately move them apart afterwards. What do you gain if you lose 200 soldiers less in each battle because your army composition is better, but 1500 starve each month because there is not enough food?
|
On August 21 2013 19:04 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2013 16:50 Tobberoth wrote:
Would love to get some discussion going on army composition, I feel semi-lost at the moment.
From what I've read in EU4 wiki and on the forums, it seems that the most basic idea is to fill up your combat width with infrantry+cavalry, then have 50% of your combat width as artillery behind that (since you can't have more than 50% active ART). Most people also seem to agree that CAV is too expensive and falls off too quickly, so you want very little CAV, some people saying as few as 2 or possible 4 regiments per stack, just for flanking.
Now, this seems very logical to me. The problem, however, is that combat width is actually very big. The BASE combat width is 15 (so with 0 military tech outside of mountains and forests). This means that an army, even in the early game, should be composed of 13 INF, 2 CAV and 7 ART. But that's at military tech 1, by the time you get ART, you will already have a bonus to combat width, so you need even more than that, say 18 INF, 2 CAV and 10 ART if you have 20 combat width. This gives you a 30 man stack, at a point in the game where you will very rarely find provinces which won't give you attrition for such a number. Hell, I'm in 1600 right now in my ottoman game, and with 15 base combat width, I have 30 combat width. That's 4 CAV, 26 INF and 15 ART, giving a stack of 45, which I can't even put in my own capital without getting attrition.
How do you guys handle this issue? Do you keep smaller armies and merge them together during combat and simply eat attrition while fighting, or do you allow yourself to stay below your combat width? I find it risky to stay below combat width unless I know the terrain favors it, since it really sucks to have ART placed in the front row... If it's like EU3, it is rarely worth it to eat attrition. Your ideal army should be just below the attrition limit, and ideally consist of a frontline which is the size of the enemy frontline + 4, and the appropriate number of artillery behind it. Your army doesn't have to win some kind of beauty contest, it should win a war, and you don't win a war if half your soldiers starve to death. Have stacks that comfortably fit the attrition limits. If the enemy has larger stacks, either let them attrition themselves to death, or team up 2 stacks of yours for that battle, and immediately move them apart afterwards. What do you gain if you lose 200 soldiers less in each battle because your army composition is better, but 1500 starve each month because there is not enough food?
Sounds like a reasonable frame of mind, and also makes combat more interesting... instead of making a doomstack and just hunting armies constantly, you instead of to look at your opponents tactics and adapt. Great point actually.
|
Im not sure, but does Cavarly hurt the enemys moral more because they lose alot more when shock gets calculated? I normally went for the mass inf+some horses and had as many cannons as i can afford, with many even trades, no matter the size (+/- 2k for either side with 25k stacks). Then is tried Ai-like quality stack (12k Inf 10K Cav 10 Cannon or sth) and I instakilled alot more. Even in midgame Firedamage(multiplier) isnt that great and you barely do damage, even when winning the fights, while cav with +3.x mutliplier really kicks.
|
It kinda depends on the war, but what I've been doing is just try to eliminate their army, and then split up to take many provinces at the same time. Doesn't mean that I have my whole army in a doomstack, but as Simberto says, my chasing stack should be big enough to defeat their biggest stack.
About the cavalry, they usually are most effective in the early game, but fall off really quick as you go on. I definately feel like they fall off much quicker compared to EU3. I think after your 2-3 first decisive wars, you should probably stop reinforcing cavalry and focus more on infantry while keeping reasonable flanks.
|
I had a nice game in EU3 where these things really got into play. As India (Deccan) the game decided that my main rivalry should be with Ming - who had twice my army size and a bit better units at this time. By using the Tibetan mountain passes I was able to win the first mayor war by sheer attrition and defensive bonusses.
The next three wars followed a similar pattern: Quickly gain a few important strongpoints to defend from, park one stack on each strongpoint with backup armies behind and then reinforce wherever they attacked. Whenever they were able to get past my defences I would lure them into my territory where attrition would wear their armies to more managable sizes.
In the end it was the number of armies that I was able to collapse quickly on one location that got me through these quite scary wars. It also helped that indian cavalry has good defence and I got lucky with some shock 4 generals.
|
That akward feeling when you play Switzerland, click on Austria... See that they consider you a Rival (amusing), they 2 years later become Emperor again (start worrying here) throwing insults at you (uhh...)... While on the other side of your borders france is just not crumbling but instead getting bigger and bigger...
And i was off to such a good start... I guess i just wait now until either Austria trys to kick my ass or France just does because fucking France won't and has never really imploded....
|
IN EU3 France was most consistent and powerfull European nation. They implode like 1 in 10 games. Wonder if its the same in EUIV.
|
On August 21 2013 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
IN EU3 France was most consistent and powerfull European nation. They implode like 1 in 10 games. Wonder if its the same in EUIV.
Probably depends on whether you have lucky nations on historical.
|
Yeah, unless you make them implode yourself, France really rarely disappears. Their base income even with only a handful of provinces is just too high and they get tons and tons of easy cores on their neighbors that are all way weaker (burgundy excluded, but they have other problems).
|
Burgundy seems to be really "fun" in EUIV...
IIRC i started around ~5 new games since i have it. In 2 of them Burgundies King died in the first ~5 years and Austria immediatly inherited.
|
I just played as Aztec. After about 200 years i managed to get a colony and core next to one of France's cores. I begin the westernization and all hell breaks loose. Portugal and France declares war and my country is broken by rebels and bankruptcy. I concede defeat to Portugal. I cede a bunch of land to France. But then the rebels win because of my `bankruptcy` modifier, ending with my westernization stopping. I had one loan at the point of me westernizing but over the course of a couple years i went bankrupt. GG.
|
in my game france is a freaking monster that just beat up austria and castille in one war, and its only 1520.
My portugal is allied to them currently to get some of castilles provinces, but its getting scary.
|
France was down to a couple provinces in mine around 1500, but their insane leaders kept them alive. Aragon had most of Spain/France, but it's imploding. Lithuania is huge, and Ottomans are still #1 closing in on 1600. Great Britain are stuck on their island; they have no transport and refuse to build one. Japan is unified and destroying Korea. Muscovy, my nemesis, has taken most of Asia despite me (Scandinavia) kicking their ass every few years.
The reason I can't destroy them is pretty simple, and maybe you guys can help me with this. If they lose a fight, that squad becomes invincible while it races back to its capital. Forced March won't work, surrounding them won't work, and if I chase, they are at 100% morale by the time we get there. It's even dumber at sea. I beat their fleet, and it races back through 5 layers of blockades to reach the province I'm sieging. When the siege is over, they come out, lose a fight, and move to another port. When there is no port left, sometimes they die, sometimes they race back the whole way around the continent to reach their port near India.
But when I fight someone in Europe, say the Hansa, when I win a fight, their squad retreats to the next province, and if I chase, they're dead. Once they're out of friendly ports to run back to, their fleet dies.
What's even more fascinating is that, if I ever happen to lose a fight, my squad marches farther into the enemy territory, not regaining any morale, and eventually gets annihilated by a single infantry. If my navy loses one engagement, it is instantly destroyed, even if it's right next to my shipyard in waters I've controller the entire game. But if I lose a fight to Muscovy, my squad races back to some random province in the West of my country, and my ships usually go to port.
Simply put, I am confused.
|
Yes the whole retreat mechanic feels really random right now. I had one or two rage save reload in my current game because my 50K army would retreat with no moral into a 2K stack and be wiped out... thats so stupid.
That and sometimes my guys run 15 provinces on the other side of my borders.
Ennemy is same behaviour sometimes they run just one or two provinces and its easy to wipe them with forced march, sometimes I follow them for 10 provinces and they have enough time to get some moral back.
Feels pretty random and just bad so far.
Thread lacks screenshots imo :p
|
On August 22 2013 02:18 rezoacken wrote:
Yes the whole retreat mechanic feels really random right now. I had one or two rage save reload in my current game because my 50K army would retreat with no moral into a 2K stack and be wiped out... thats so stupid.
That and sometimes my guys run 15 provinces on the other side of my borders.
Ennemy is same behaviour sometimes they run just one or two provinces and its easy to wipe them with forced march, sometimes I follow them for 10 provinces and they have enough time to get some moral back.
Feels pretty random and just bad so far.
Thread lacks screenshots imo :p
Heh, try playing a game as Russia and watching the retreat mechanic force-move your army from Switzerland to the Bering Strait, and there's nothing you can do about it! Whether it's worse than the endless ping-ponging of EU3 I'm not sure, but it's certainly obnoxious. But hey, it's just after release and it's a Paradox game. Historically, that means we need to wait a few more patch cycles and expansions. Then it'll be awesome.
|
On August 22 2013 01:44 LaNague wrote:
in my game france is a freaking monster that just beat up austria and castille in one war, and its only 1520.
My portugal is allied to them currently to get some of castilles provinces, but its getting scary.
If you play portugal, you don't really have to fear France :D
Castille is your only danger, and your main competitor in the Americas. So if they are getting beaten, all is good!
On August 22 2013 02:04 Pwere wrote:
France was down to a couple provinces in mine around 1500, but their insane leaders kept them alive. Aragon had most of Spain/France, but it's imploding. Lithuania is huge, and Ottomans are still #1 closing in on 1600. Great Britain are stuck on their island; they have no transport and refuse to build one. Japan is unified and destroying Korea. Muscovy, my nemesis, has taken most of Asia despite me (Scandinavia) kicking their ass every few years.
The reason I can't destroy them is pretty simple, and maybe you guys can help me with this. If they lose a fight, that squad becomes invincible while it races back to its capital. Forced March won't work, surrounding them won't work, and if I chase, they are at 100% morale by the time we get there. It's even dumber at sea. I beat their fleet, and it races back through 5 layers of blockades to reach the province I'm sieging. When the siege is over, they come out, lose a fight, and move to another port. When there is no port left, sometimes they die, sometimes they race back the whole way around the continent to reach their port near India.
But when I fight someone in Europe, say the Hansa, when I win a fight, their squad retreats to the next province, and if I chase, they're dead. Once they're out of friendly ports to run back to, their fleet dies.
What's even more fascinating is that, if I ever happen to lose a fight, my squad marches farther into the enemy territory, not regaining any morale, and eventually gets annihilated by a single infantry. If my navy loses one engagement, it is instantly destroyed, even if it's right next to my shipyard in waters I've controller the entire game. But if I lose a fight to Muscovy, my squad races back to some random province in the West of my country, and my ships usually go to port.
Simply put, I am confused.
You can't win against Russia, merely delay it. It's realist, chasing an army into their territory doesn't sound like strategically sane.
Let them retreat, they use manpower and money (yeah, reinforcing cost money now, changes everything!), while you siege their possessions.
Also, you can control the direction you flee in by starting a retreat (the battle need to be clearly lost, and you need to avoid annihilation (2x your troops), then you take the army fighting and click away from the fight. Should let you control the fleeing path.
But yeah, their fleeing mechanic is ridiculous. Armies never maintained forced retreats like that on such distances.
Either it's a forced retreat and they should not regain morale, or it's an organized retreat and they should be as fast at you, not faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
