Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Warfare...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Victoria 2 17560 After Action Reports (AAR)
Comrade110

Comrade110

Major
10 Badges
Nov 17, 2013
789
689
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
Is the whole combat based on that idiotic random dice roll ???

Why the combat cant be like HoI which is way more realistic, that random dice mkes me angry often, I know that terrain and commanders influence combat a lot aswell but the biggest factor is still the goddamn random element, why ? :(
 
I've never even noticed the die rolls, usually it comes down to unit composition, terrain, technology, generals, inventions, morale and supplies. Have you checked all of those?
 
ThatStrategyGuy said:
I've never even noticed the die rolls, usually it comes down to unit composition, terrain, technology, generals, inventions, morale and supplies. Have you checked all of those?
Click to expand...

Well often happens stuff like this, my standing army: 5x art,1x guard,1x hussar,1x engineer,7x infantry goes vs just mobilized reserves lets say of 15 infantry, those lack recoinsance, artillery, engineers nad stomp over my face bec of better die roll ??? Seriously ? Battle was in flat terrain, no other penalties, technolgies equal, no super commanders on either side, how that makes any sense ?
 
Even with terrible die rolls, if your troops are better you will almost always win.

example, yesterday in my game, I had 120k vs 220k rebels, but my soldiers were guards and artillery with excellent tech, die rolls 0 to 9, still creamed the rebels.
 
BMN said:
Even with terrible die rolls, if your troops are better you will almost always win.

example, yesterday in my game, I had 120k vs 220k rebels, but my soldiers were guards and artillery with excellent tech, die rolls 0 to 9, still creamed the rebels.
Click to expand...

I think rebels have 0 techs ? I always crush those like bugs, no problem there, Im talking about battles vs developed nations.

Btw is it better to have just pure guards or combine it with infantry ? Currently Im doing 1 guard and 7 infantry,+(5 arti,1 hussar,1 engineer) would it be better 4 guards and 4 inf ?
 
Comrade110 said:
Well often happens stuff like this, my standing army: 5x art,1x guard,1x hussar,1x engineer,7x infantry goes vs just mobilized reserves lets say of 15 infantry, those lack recoinsance, artillery, engineers nad stomp over my face bec of better die roll ??? Seriously ? Battle was in flat terrain, no other penalties, technolgies equal, no super commanders on either side, how that makes any sense ?
Click to expand...
On a flat terrain the front is probably wide enough for 15 units, so their infantry crushes your units that need the cover and flank the rest, so with everything else equal you should expect a total disaster.
 
Comrade110 said:
Well often happens stuff like this, my standing army: 5x art,1x guard,1x hussar,1x engineer,7x infantry goes vs just mobilized reserves lets say of 15 infantry, those lack recoinsance, artillery, engineers nad stomp over my face bec of better die roll ??? Seriously ? Battle was in flat terrain, no other penalties, technolgies equal, no super commanders on either side, how that makes any sense ?
Click to expand...

I'm playing PoD and am not an expert by any means but I think the consensus is to have two horse units rather than just one as they attach sideways as well. Also, I tend to have just one less or equal artillery to my infantry. I like to have 6 infantry/guard, 6 artillery, 1 engineer and two horse units.

I'm not really sure about the difference between guards and infantry as PoD doesn't have them. They only have regulars, which are infinitely better than infantry so I just have them.
 
Comrade110 said:
Well often happens stuff like this, my standing army: 5x art,1x guard,1x hussar,1x engineer,7x infantry goes vs just mobilized reserves lets say of 15 infantry, those lack recoinsance, artillery, engineers nad stomp over my face bec of better die roll ??? Seriously ? Battle was in flat terrain, no other penalties, technolgies equal, no super commanders on either side, how that makes any sense ?
Click to expand...

There are lots of other factors like soldier experience, dig in cap, combat width, whether you are crossing a river, supplies percentage, organisation. I have beaten better armies by acting defensively. Also commanders with good morale effects can make a decent difference, dont just employ anybody as a general.

Also artillery acts as support and is probably only really useful for places where you have restricted combat width available, engineers only give bonuses for fortress attacks. So the enemy has 15 infantry against your 8.5 inf + 1 cavalry and supporting artillery, if the enemy were acting defensively no wonder they won.

But I also wonder if there is a tireness factor as well, because I have seen armies do really well early on but after a few continuous battles they seem to start losing morale faster than before.
 
Last edited:
I'm finding that, at the beginning of the 20th Century, despite being ahead of the game in terms of tech and composition and even quantity, that my stacks suffer a hell of a lot by not having sufficient numbers of infantry brigades to replace casualties, meaning that my artillery and engineers end up on the front lines more often then not.

I'm planning to switch away from modular stacks now, towards 'forward formations' of infantry, and 'support formations' (that reinforce my forward elements when they contact) of enough artillery, cavalry and engineers for one full combat width, so I can use more of my manpower for riflemen.
 
General Baker said:
I'm finding that, at the beginning of the 20th Century, despite being ahead of the game in terms of tech and composition and even quantity, that my stacks suffer a hell of a lot by not having sufficient numbers of infantry brigades to replace casualties, meaning that my artillery and engineers end up on the front lines more often then not.

I'm planning to switch away from modular stacks now, towards 'forward formations' of infantry, and 'support formations' (that reinforce my forward elements when they contact) of enough artillery, cavalry and engineers for one full combat width, so I can use more of my manpower for riflemen.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats what Im doing aswell, adding more infantry so all the support brigades will be behind them, the lack of infantry on the 1st line was mistake on my side which led to losing those battles I guess.
 
Are you fight post machine guns and pre-bolt action rifles? If so that's likely your problem.
 
Last edited:
I also felt it frustrating when russian peasant armies would defeat a standing army by pilling troops into a battle. I made a little mod to sorta fix it, i made Infantry less effective and made the engineer into a professional infantry unit, to simulate a standing army. Also organization is very very important
 
Flak509 said:
I also felt it frustrating when russian peasant armies would defeat a standing army by pilling troops into a battle. I made a little mod to sorta fix it, i made Infantry less effective and made the engineer into a professional infantry unit, to simulate a standing army. Also organization is very very important
Click to expand...

Sounds good, but is it not true that throughout history Russia or the USSR has simply won battles through sheer weight of numbers? I seem to remember reading that invading army leaders would complain that it wasn't so much the quality of Russian troops that cause them issues but the fact that more and more keep coming. Not saying its' bad what you've done, in fact, i agree that organisation should be highly important.
 
Yes and no i would say, masses can still win, it just favors nations that train an army rather than mobilize. This way the likes of Sweden and Prussia has a better chance
 
Infantry is already reduced to acting as a screen for your artillery in Heart of Darkness. Weakening it further is not only unnecessary, it's probably not effective. How much did you weaken them? Two or three points?
 
1anrs said:
I seem to remember reading that invading army leaders would complain that it wasn't so much the quality of Russian troops that cause them issues but the fact that more and more keep coming.
Click to expand...
Some of them should have probably be complaining that no troops were coming at them at all :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back