• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

unmerged(994)

Captain
Feb 18, 2001
318
0
Visit site
Which is your preferred style in army composition? Normally, I raise a couple of all-rounded at least 20k attack armies (about 10k inf, 6k cav, 4k arty) to beat enemies in the field and lay siege, commanded by the best generals I can afford, and a bunch of smaller (5-7k) armies, almost all infantry with the occasional 1 or 2k cav to act as a mobile defence force; occasionally I raise also a medium-sized (5 to 10k) all cav force to raid deep inside enemy territory. I know it's quite an expensive way of doing, and that it takes quite a lot to be built, but it usually gives the advantage of quickly gaining the key objectives on the offensive while still affording good defence (I move def infantry on internal lines, so I can place them where I really need, grouping and finng their ranks with new troops when necessary), and I think that the best way to economise on your military budget is keeping the wars you fight as short as possible. Another point is that if you defend well your borders with modile troops, you don't need to invest too much in fortifications, and a third one is that you can easily bolster your offensive first line composite armies with the second line infantry (remember that grunts are the ones that suffer the most form battle damage).
 
The size of my armies depend on my neighbours. I try to see what they are likely to have coming my way then ensure that my main army has 50% more guns and at least 25% more cavalry. Give the enemy Cav superiority and your infantry just melts away like mist, leader or no leader. Infantry numbers are less important since it is mostly just siege fodder. Once the main enemy force is on the run, I split most of the cav to chase it down and have several siege armies with 30-40 guns and as many infantry as the province can take or are needed to siege (whichever is less.) If I can't afford these numbers of troops, I spend my money on the diplomatic actions needed to ensure I won't have to meet the enemy up close & personal without some allies who can.
 
Originally posted by Loewefuchs
Another point is that if you defend well your borders with modile troops, you don't need to invest too much in fortifications
Thats true, but OTOH if you have strong fortifications in your border provinces you can instead let the enemy besiege them. After a couple of months the enemy will be severely weakened by attrition, the more so if it is winter or the province has low supply, and you can rush in with a field army and crush them.
 
Originally posted by Grenadier

Thats true, but OTOH if you have strong fortifications in your border provinces you can instead let the enemy besiege them. After a couple of months the enemy will be severely weakened by attrition, the more so if it is winter or the province has low supply, and you can rush in with a field army and crush them.

Sure, but you can't move fortifications, and, in addiction, the troops sieging you wear out the province in wihich they are as well as themselves. If you base your defense on troops and you drive deep into enemy territory with the main strike force, you can occupy enemy border provinces and force the enemy to attack you there instead in your territory. More than this, if you are definitely on the move, you can use the defensive force to bolster the siege armies, as mentioned above. The main principle seems me to be that you ALWAYS have to take the initiative and move into enemy territory as soon as you can, even if you are in a defensive stance (the Israeli doctrine: strategically defensive - the badboy value often makes forced annexation less than an option - and tactically offensive).
 
Originally posted by Loewefuchs

The main principle seems me to be that you ALWAYS have to take the initiative and move into enemy territory as soon as you can, even if you are in a defensive stance (the Israeli doctrine: strategically defensive - the badboy value often makes forced annexation less than an option - and tactically offensive).

Well, that depends. Remember that when in an enemy province, you will get a much lower supply level than if you´re in a province of your own. If you´re moving a large army into an enemy mountaineous province with supply 6, especially during winter, your will loose most of your troops in a couple of months. So, it depends on the circumstances. In Western Europe, where there generally is large supply and less severe winter, taking the offensive is preferred. But in Northern/Eastern Europe this may not be the case.

About the Israeli doctrine: yes, this is a good way of fighting for Israel. In fact, it is the ONLY way of fighting for such a small country surrounded by hostile neighbours. But this is not necessarily the case for a large, sparsely populated country. Remember how Russia has survived the invasions of Karl XII, Napoleon, Hitler etc: fighting a deep battle, retreating far into their country. Let the enemy perish in the harsh Russian winter, thousands of km from home with over-extended supply lines. THEN counter-attack and drive the enemy to Paris/Berlin etc.

So, i think it depends a lot of which country you´re playing and its geographical situation.
 
LOL, Loewefuchs you wrote 'in addiction,' was that a Freudian slip I wonder? I know like most of us i've been skipping sleep and food in the name of King and Country :)

My army philosophy is basically to try to preserve my expensive cavalry and guns, while letting my infantry take losses. To that end I also like to split my seige and 'battle' armies. If I expect heavy enemy incursuions into my territory, and/or if I have a large border to defend as Russia or Poland, then I usually always have one large central all cav force which manuevers to meet the enemy, bolstering the static infantry armies that act as a meat shield on the border. I also like to move a strike force of infantry and cavarlry into enemy territory to chase out and damage their forces; which force then moves to enage more armies or back home while a dedicated seige force arrives on the scene to take the city. Of course, it dosn't always work out that way...
 
Grenadier: true.
Maybe my style is due to the fact that I normally play with Prussia or other small but well organized countries. Anyway, the Russian doctrine can be applied only if you are directly attacked, and the examples you give are of (exeption made for Carl XII) not from EU timespan. IMHO, this doctrine works only if you are facing an all-out invasion, which is quite seldom the case in EU. Normally, wars are attempt to grab some provinces from a large country or to annex a small one. In the second case, you must go Israeli style, in the first one you can't do a lot if you wait the enemy to drive so deep: they just grab as may border provinces they can and go ahead in one ore to directions, where supply is possible. Of course, this reflects the situation of XVI-XVIII centuries, when full scale national organisation was not so diffused in large countries, and this made strategic penetration not so important (btw, historically the lack of this kind of organisation was the main reason of Spain's and Poland's defeats in the long run, and it's presence was the key of success for Austria, England and, of course, Prussia).
And another point: Poland and Russia capital province are not so far away from the border, so if you lose them, it wouldn't help a lot using the 'General Winter' doctrine).
 
Allowing the main field army to suffer attrition against one of your fortresses is always a good idea in my book, provided you have a t least a couple of more sensibly sized forces returning the favour elsewhere. The AI does seem a little fixated on reclaiming territory and ignoring your troop movements.