Combat proposal: A strategy for the weak

nijis · Oct 16, 2012

Cheers -- firstly, I'm really looking forward to the game, and am very excited that the emphasis is going to be on trade and the use of having a navy. However, I think also Clausewitz's land system could use some work, in particular to address the ease with which a large force can attack a small force and wipe it out.

The best strategy in a Clausewitz game is to form a large stack and hunt down the other side's smaller stacks before they combine. In theory it's a fine strategy, but in practice it was actually fairly rarely employed. It was hard to bring an enemy to battle, particularly a smaller and more nimble force. Battles where 10k troops wipe out 3k troops were fairly rare, not because 10k troops couldn't do it, but because the 3k would never take the field against them if they could avoid it -- and usually, there is a way to avoid it. It wasn't simply a question of marching faster than the other side -- in the time it took to go from marching order to battle array, the other side could usually march off.

As best as I can tell, most pitched battles in the period in question were between relatively evenly-matched forces. Take one well-known exception -- Agincourt. Here the French were trying to force the smaller English side into battle, but it took considerable maneuvering to do so. The English victory was all the more surprising because Henry never wanted to fight in the first place.

I would propose a simple change that would

1) Make blobbing harder
2) Give the weaker side a viable defensive strategy even if vastly outnumbered -- shadowing the enemy, harassing and waiting for an opportunity
3) Make battles rarer, but less predictable
4) Give flavor to, for example, Spanish partisans, guerrilla leaders like Shivaji, steppe nomads, and other
5) Make underpopulated provinces with rough terrain more expensive to conquer, as they were historically, without giving them an unrealistic troop bonus that could also carry over to the offense.

Therefore, what I would propose would be for each stack of units to have a toggled flag -- either seeking battle, or declining battle. If two enemy stacks are in the same region and both want battle, then they fight. If neither stacks want battle, they don't fight -- although maybe there could be a skirmish mechanism, where they inflict a few casualties/morale losses on each other, preferably without taking into consideration numerical odds.

If some stacks are offering battle, and other stacks are declining battle, then the following happens:

1) Both sides skirmish, as above. Skirmishing might be one randomly selected unit versus another unit, rather than stack vs stack -- thus making numerical odds less important
2) Each side faces an attrition penalty, with the side declining battle facing a higher one. (It's hard to gather food when you need to stay out of reach)
3) The side declining battle suffers a periodic morale loss, unless they have a really good leader. It's demoralizing to constantly be out of reach
4) Both sides move more slowly out of the province
5) Only sides offering battle may siege. They do so somewhat less effectively
6) Each day, there is a small chance that any stack offering battle may force an enemy into pitch battle. This is more likely if the target stack is large, contains artillery, etc. Good leaders or all-cav stacks, or stacks in rough terrain, have an easier time staying out of reach
7) The weaker force faces the risk of an event -- leader accused of cowardice, losing stability, unless you fight. This represents the political factors that sometimes forced an army into battle.

Some other possible options
1) If there's a sudden change of fortunes -- morale falls in the stronger force -- then the weaker force can suddenly switch to offering battle, descend on the enemy, and wipe them out.
2) A stronger force might want to detach a flying column -- all cavalry, for example, to hunt a weaker force in the same region.
3) A similar system might be used at sea, to represent the difficulties of hunting small crafts/flotillas -- ie, pirate sloops -- with large fleets.

I realize that there is no such thing as an easy change in a computer game, particularly one where you have to teach the AI to use a tactic effectively.

Another drawback would be that it would be harder to tell from looking at the map what is going on in a province.

But, I think it would possibly make for a more exciting, unpredictable, and realistic game.

Avrelianvs · Oct 16, 2012

I don't know if it can be done, but I'm all for it. This sounds way more realistic and historical, and would make possible some scenarios that happened in history, but were impossible to replicate in UE3. For example, using guerrilla tactics, Albanians under their leader Skenderbeg managed to resist for 30 years agains the Ottomans having a standing army of 3K, complessively 16K with the levies, and facing armies as big as 60-70K.

Just one qualifier about point 2) when one army try to avoid battle and the other offers it: it's true that a retiring army has less time for foraging, but it's also true that a nimbler (smaller) army can forage before the other army comes in range and also practice a 'tabula rasa' tactic: namely, burning everything. Who gets the higher attrition penalty should be a matter of generals, numbers and composition. A 3K army, all cavalry, commanded by a good general should have smaller attrition than a 15K army, mostly infantry, with artillery and a lousy general.

unmerged(15337) · Oct 16, 2012

It's an interesting idea and would probably add a lot to the game, both in realism and micromanagement. It would likely add a lot of frustration for a would-be blobber player (which has its good and bad points). Then there's the question of whether or not the AI could be coded to manage this feature at all decently. I'm curious to hear Johan's reaction to this.

WGPower · Oct 16, 2012

This is a great idea, possibly hard to implement though. It also offers exciting possibilities and strategic options for force composition/order of battle. I think it would make the stats of generals far more important too, imagine a 6 shock 6 maneuvre general skirmishing the flanks of an army with a large baggage train!

It adds potential for skirmish lines (rifleman/voltigeurs) and is far more realistic, and makes something like the Ulm Campaign possible too.

Dewirix · Oct 16, 2012

The proposal sounds similar to the AGEOD system, where armies have command postures ranging from "all out offensive" to "avoid battle at all costs".

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Posture

nijis · Oct 16, 2012

It's an interesting idea and would probably add a lot to the game, both in realism and micromanagement.

Certainly there is a risk of increasing micromanagement. One way to minimize might be to

1) Make avoid battle the default mode. This means that you click on a unit when you want the higher-risk option of giving battle. This might possibly reduce micromanagement overall, as you don't need to worry as much about all your little forces getting overrun by larger enemy stacks
2) Make it so that the harassment strategy -- lingering in a region with a larger force -- has more risk than reward for the weaker force unless one or more of the following is true
* You have the right kind of leader
* The terrain is suitable
* You have little chance of ever mustering enough force to beat the main enemy stack in open battle.

The proposal sounds similar to the AGEOD system, where armies have command postures ranging from "all out offensive" to "avoid battle at all costs".

It is similar to the AGEOD system. However, when I tried it in BoA and other games, I was never able to get the right combination of offensive/defensive posture to do what I wanted -- to slow down an attack with light troops. That's why I thought that a very simple posture setting of give battle/avoid battle might work best, with abstract all the other options like skirmishing, scorched earth, attacking supply trains and depots, etc.

AGEOD's WeGo also creates complications, as you have to predict a turn ahead what your force might encounter. EU's continuous time allows forces to react more quickly.

Who gets the higher attrition penalty should be a matter of generals, numbers and composition.

Certainly -- but whether you avoid battle or not should be perhaps one factor among many.

Järnblomma · Oct 16, 2012

Cautiosly optimistic to this proposal.

Mats_SX · Oct 17, 2012

I don't like how this proposal makes the game more random. Being lucky in catching somebody's army in a province will now replace the previous system where skillful maneuver from the player will protect your troops. You're transferring something a player can control into something that is based on an abstract "leader" of the army. Managing your armies correctly is a hard task, and it is what separates a more skillful warrior from a less skillful one in the EU series. You propose to remove this aspect to much extent, and replacing it with a 1/0 switch button, which the player should master instead. It's a loss in resolution, as this 1/0 switch offers less options than manually managing every army does.

The hard borders of a province forces abstractions (a unit 1 day away from leaving a province is caught by one just entering because provinces are discrete and of size 1). Consider the current system an abstraction for the realism you seek; an army is in another province, keeping track of enemy movement but not engaging. This is controlled by the player and not the non-person leader of the army.

Avrelianvs · Oct 17, 2012

Mats_SX said:
I don't like how this proposal makes the game more random. Being lucky in catching somebody's army in a province will now replace the previous system where skillful maneuver from the player will protect your troops. You're transferring something a player can control into something that is based on an abstract "leader" of the army. Managing your armies correctly is a hard task, and it is what separates a more skillful warrior from a less skillful one in the EU series. You propose to remove this aspect to much extent, and replacing it with a 1/0 switch button, which the player should master instead. It's a loss in resolution, as this 1/0 switch offers less options than manually managing every army does.

The hard borders of a province forces abstractions (a unit 1 day away from leaving a province is caught by one just entering because provinces are discrete and of size 1). Consider the current system an abstraction for the realism you seek; an army is in another province, keeping track of enemy movement but not engaging. This is controlled by the player and not the non-person leader of the army.

The idea is to make combat more realistic, which means that you can try to avoid battle, but you don't succeed automatically: it depends from many factors, one of which is the leader you have appointed in command of that army... let me repeat: YOU have appointed, nothing random in that!

As for the 'skillful maneuver', what are you talking about? If you have a smaller army and you see a bigger one coming in the province the only hope is getting the heck out of there as fast as you can: nothing skillful in it! Actually this system would enhance tactics: if you're a small country you'll have to be more careful in the composition of your army and it's leader because there is no place where to retreat, differently from a huge Empire that can sustain losing a couple of province while is preparing a counter-attack. History shows us that small countries during Medieval were perfectly capable defending themselves even for long periods (decades) thanks to guerrilla tactics. Simulating those in EU3 is impossible and I hope EU4 would do a better job at it.

FOARP · Oct 17, 2012

Avrelianvs said:
The idea is to make combat more realistic, which means that you can try to avoid battle, but you don't succeed automatically: it depends from many factors, one of which is the leader you have appointed in command of that army... let me repeat: YOU have appointed, nothing random in that!

You mean the leader who I assigned to the army from another a thousand miles away a day before it met the enemy, then re-assigned to another army thousands of miles away, all to get a random effect that may-or-may-not have the desired effect.

The better solution to the hunt-the-stacks problem of CKII is the one they're implementing in the latest upgrade - make it so the stacks don't need to be raised in every county but come pre-assembled to a degree.

Mats_SX · Oct 17, 2012

Avrelianvs said:
The idea is to make combat more realistic, which means that you can try to avoid battle, but you don't succeed automatically: it depends from many factors, one of which is the leader you have appointed in command of that army... let me repeat: YOU have appointed, nothing random in that!

Depending on many factors you say? Deterministically? Or randomized?

Avrelianvs said:
As for the 'skillful maneuver', what are you talking about? If you have a smaller army and you see a bigger one coming in the province the only hope is getting the heck out of there as fast as you can: nothing skillful in it! Actually this system would enhance tactics: if you're a small country you'll have to be more careful in the composition of your army and it's leader because there is no place where to retreat, differently from a huge Empire that can sustain losing a couple of province while is preparing a counter-attack. History shows us that small countries during Medieval were perfectly capable defending themselves even for long periods (decades) thanks to guerrilla tactics. Simulating those in EU3 is impossible and I hope EU4 would do a better job at it.

Skillful maneuver includes not having small armies scattered around to be intercepted at your border. That's better than the lazy "switch the button and wish".

As for small countries, your point is made. But what is the real advantage? The enemy moves in, the smaller country's army doesn't die but the province fort falls sooner or later, and the province is lost. What is gained?

panionios · Oct 17, 2012

I don't think it can be done. The Stack of Doom problem is common to other games, notably Civ, which Firaxis have tried to address but failed miserably.

Avrelianvs · Oct 17, 2012

Mats_SX said:
Depending on many factors you say? Deterministically? Or randomized?

Deterministically. Namely, size of the army, composition (cavalry surely must have a higher probablily of 'evasion' than infantry), but also capability of the general.

Mats_SX said:
Skillful maneuver includes not having small armies scattered around to be intercepted at your border. That's better than the lazy "switch the button and wish".

I tend to disagree with that, having the need to guard the 'front', and those front troops being able to slow down the enemy makes for a better strategy game, IMO.

Mats_SX said:
As for small countries, your point is made. But what is the real advantage? The enemy moves in, the smaller country's army doesn't die but the province fort falls sooner or later, and the province is lost. What is gained?

What is gained is a better and more realistic balance between huge Empires and small countries. So you can avoid having France, for example, steamroll every other continental country in Europe. And than again, who said the fort of the province will fall sooner or latter? If you can force a severe attrition in the invading army (specially during winter) then it should be possible that the fort resists and the big army is forced to retreat.

Avrelianvs · Oct 17, 2012

Just to elaborate using a specific example, from 1443 to 1480, Albanians managed to withstand the Ottomans specifically with guerrilla tactics: avoiding battle when they could, choosing the terrain for it if necessary, but most importantly, attacking supply's caravans, making impossible for Ottomans to spend the winter in their lands. In fact, their defense cracked only when the Ottomans managed successfully to build a fortess (Elbasan) which made them capable to exert pressure even in winter. Now, this is difficult to represent in a game, but this proposition comes near the objective and makes it all more realistic, if implemented.

nijis · Oct 17, 2012

As for small countries, your point is made. But what is the real advantage? The enemy moves in, the smaller country's army doesn't die but the province fort falls sooner or later, and the province is lost. What is gained?

If you've done it right, you inflict enough attrition on the larger army so that they can't take the rest of your forts. At some point, you may be able to engage them in a field battle.

I agree that the system adds more randomness. I personally find that this makes the game more interesting.

Some version of this might work, with less randomness but more micromanagement, if the smaller army could affect the larger one from an adjacent province. The point is that, in my opinion, there should be some way to implement to the historically common tactic of shadowing a larger army with a smaller one, picking off stragglers and forages, nipping at its heels, etc.

(Ed: Just saw that Avrelianvs made the same point above, using a good historical example.)

Jaspume · Oct 17, 2012

Järnblomma said:
Cautiosly optimistic to this proposal.

As am I.

Vishaing · Oct 17, 2012

This is pretty much exactly the Battle System of Magna Mundi, with the small addition of command limits based on a General's Tactical Skill, if you don't have a Leader, you can have as many regiments as you want in the province, but probably only 5-6 will actually be in combat, the rest will just be sitting around suffering attrition.

Expanding on this though, one of the most fundamental change was outright redefining of what EU3 considered Battles into long term Provincial Campaigns, to explain how they last months at a time, and then adding a new phase of combat. In addition to scouting, skirmishing, and others, we had the "Decisive Battle" phase, which was, well, Decisive. Once a Decisive Battle has begun, no matter who wins, the provincial campaign is over the next day, with generally thousands Dead in a single Day.

Larger more heavily armed forces would attempt to force their opponent into a Decisive Battle phase, however a more maneuverable force (with a cunning general, that part was important, very important) would seek to avoid this and keep in the Skirmishing Phase.

So yes, it can be done, and from my experience the system worked exceptionally well. Oh, and before anyone asks, the AI was fully capable of understanding this, dividing their forces and massing them when appropriate.

Mats_SX · Oct 17, 2012

Avrelianvs said:
Deterministically. Namely, size of the army, composition (cavalry surely must have a higher probablily of 'evasion' than infantry), but also capability of the general.

You talk about determinism and probabilities at the same time. That makes me confused.

I tend to disagree with that, having the need to guard the 'front', and those front troops being able to slow down the enemy makes for a better strategy game, IMO.

But if this system you propose was implemented, who would actually build a large stack to attack you? They'd know you can just repel them with a few regiments. So instead they'd launch several small attacks, and your smaller army can't defend anyway? In the end, the nation with the larger army wins, no?

Avrelianvs said:
What is gained is a better and more realistic balance between huge Empires and small countries. So you can avoid having France, for example, steamroll every other continental country in Europe. And than again, who said the fort of the province will fall sooner or latter? If you can force a severe attrition in the invading army (specially during winter) then it should be possible that the fort resists and the big army is forced to retreat.

If nation A has a stronger army than nation B, nation A should win in most of the cases. Why else invest in a strong army?

Avrelianvs · Oct 18, 2012

Mats_SX said:
You talk about determinism and probabilities at the same time. That makes me confused.

I'll try to answer point by point, keeping in mind that I'm not the one who proposed this system. Determinism: it should be always possible to force a battle, but there should be factors that change the probabilities, to the point in which it'd be improbable to force an army to battle if they have all this factors working for them (size, composition, leadership ecc.) That said, an army cannot go on like this forever: sooner or latter you'll have to choose between giving battle or retreating out of the province. This could be simulated with morals: the more you avoid battle the more you lose in morals. It'll be a race between the attrition of the bigger army and morals of the smaller.

Mats_SX said:
But if this system you propose was implemented, who would actually build a large stack to attack you? They'd know you can just repel them with a few regiments. So instead they'd launch several small attacks, and your smaller army can't defend anyway? In the end, the nation with the larger army wins, no?

That's the strategic part of it. If you have the resources you can build larger, havier, armies with lots of infantry and artillery. You'll need those if you have an offensive strategy and want to take the forts (and therefore the provinces). If your strategy is defensive, you'll need a nimbler army, mostly cavalry and no artillery: hard to conquer a province with those and easy to chase away.

Mats_SX said:
If nation A has a stronger army than nation B, nation A should win in most of the cases. Why else invest in a strong army?

The point of all this is to make a little more interesting war with a weaker power and also more realistic. Historically speaking though, you're right: usually the stronger country wins (not always anyway). It SHOULD be the normal course of events that it's so! It would be ridiculous if a smaller country had the same chances of winning. That said, I'm a sucker for the little guy: I'd like the slim chance to take a very small country and fight off an Empire. I just want a chance: in EU3 is pratically impossible.

nijis · Oct 18, 2012

If nation A has a stronger army than nation B, nation A should win in most of the cases. Why else invest in a strong army?

All things being equal, you still want a stronger army -- it gives you a good chance of conquering even a difficult small opponent. But it doesn't mean you should win all the time. Historically, inconclusive wars were quite common. Particularly in the early part of the period it was a big deal to conquer someone, even if you had a stronger army.

Also, we're not talking about a smaller power winning a decisive victory. Skanderbeg is not going to take Constantinople, Vietnam won't conquer China, Shivaji won't topple the Moghuls. But one of these leaders might fight the bigger power to a draw, as they did historically.

They'd know you can just repel them with a few regiments.

That's not the point -- you have a chance of repelling them with just a few regiments -- with a good leader, with good terrain, etc. The idea is to make as many wars as possible interesting, without a pre-determined outcome dictated by the biggest stacks.

This is pretty much exactly the Battle System of Magna Mundi, with the small addition of command limits based on a General's Tactical Skill, if you don't have a Leader, you can have as many regiments as you want in the province, but probably only 5-6 will actually be in combat, the rest will just be sitting around suffering attrition.

I'd read about MM's system and hoped that it would allow this kind of strategy.

Combat proposal: A strategy for the weak

Captain

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

Second Lieutenant

Historically plausible

Captain

Major

Field Marshal

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

Field Marshal

Lt. General

First Lieutenant

First Lieutenant

Captain

Colonel

MM Prime Minister in Exile

Field Marshal

First Lieutenant

Captain