A New Player's Thoughts

[CybrSlydr]

So, I purchased EUIII:C and H3T off Steam and have been playing the past few days. Since I'm new, I put difficulty and aggression on Easy. I picked Scotland as my country - something awesome about those plucky Scots - and I have some Scottish heritage. lol

First time - immediately I get a mission to take Oakney (I think that's the name - the island to the north). I didn't think to check their allies and attacked - only to be rubbed out in rather quick fashion by both Norway and Denmark - their allies.

Next I decided to forgo that and went after Ulster. Got them, but always have to look out for rebellions and revolts.

This time I was checking allies to make sure I don't get in over my head.

Eventually I started going after England after France and some other ally I accepted attacked them. It was nice at first as they pretty much ignored me as I took Cambria and North Umberland (I think...). Then they started attacking with larger armies. Thankfully, I think the French and whoever drew them mostly away as they again, started to leave me alone.

So I sent a 5k+ army further south into England. England was collapsing upon its self. I met little resistance as I went south - and brought another 5k army just in case. I sacked London in short fashion.

Within a few years, I had control of the entire English island except for Wessex, Cornwall and the Wales area (don't remember it's name). Reason being as they were now independent nations. It was also at this time I LOST all that territory as one of my allies made peace with them and I had to give it all back. ARRRGH!!! It's very strange not automatically getting the territory as I'm an avid Total War fan. (Rome and Empire being my favorites).

Eventually I quested south again and retook all the territory I lost in the peace and then had England cede it all for peace. I then used spies to do the legitimacy claim and then again sacked London and annexed it.

Shortly after that I took over the entire Irish island as well. By 1480, my final territories kicked into Core and I united the entire island and formed Great Britain.

I saw Brittany had a few territories (4 I think) and decided they'd be perfect for a foothold on the European continent. Holy balls...

I sent my first stack of 8k and it was obliterated by their 14k stack. So I build a whole bunch more cogs and others and sent my own 12k+ stacks - and watched them get obliterated as well.

The Papal states were allies of Brittany, so I had to deal with their ships - not too bad as a few large battles ended that threat.

I continually sent stack after stack into Brittany to take out their army, but I just couldn't kill it! I was using whole Latin Knight armies and just getting slaughtered. This went on for probably 5-8 YEARS. That is a LONG time in-game, even at high compression rates.

Finally, after some time, I captured a territory and played "chase the Brittany army" for what seemed like forever. A few times, I lost and had to send new stacks in, hoping to get there before their stack replenished.

Unfortunately, this is where things started to unravel. I'm constantly getting Nationalistic uprisings on England and Ireland. Same with Brittany after I control it. I find that my revolt % is up around 30% in almost all my territories. Stability is taking a nose dive.

Eventually, around 1520, I can't keep up and just quit as there are too many rebellious territories and I can't make armies fast enough.

Overall, I like this game. Very different than Total War. I must say that I love the depth. Choosing how your country is set up, what laws it passes, National Ideas, etc. are great! I love it!

However... I dislike how tacked on the battles feel. Very disappointing. I mean... You have one choice in infantry and one choice in cavalry? When you upgrade land tech you get another - and they're all worthless? It's almost like this game doesn't want you to go to war. I really wish you had nitty-gritty control of the battles like in the Total War series. Heck, meld the overland map and other features of EU and give me the RTS of Total War and it's perfect!

I find I like this game a lot more than I anticipated. I'm not surprised in what I dislike about it, but I'm surprised by what I do like.

Thanks for reading.

 

[unmerged(93974)]

questions, why all latin knight stacks for attacking? first, chevachee is better for attacking, second, if you have a mix of infantry and cavalry, you get a bonus, and your cavalry will flank the enemy. the ideal stack is either 4:6:1 or 4:8:1 according to AAR's. i advise that you restart from the beggining, and use these stacks. Also, did you have any generals? were all regiments at full strength? did you land your troops at a province adjacent to their troops? etc. minor details that could affect the overall outcome of the battle. also. since you are having uprisings all the time, keep some stacks on the home front. i keep 50000 in my france game. currently at 350/20 or so for BB, so i've got rebels coming up even faster than wack a mole games.
edit: my personal way of invading is to use 4:6:0 stacks, and follow up after their army has been destroyed with 0:1:1 armies.

 

[JosunUrashima]

Dont go for Orkney unless you own the Isles or have a bunch of allies. Or Norway and Denmark are tiny and weak

You went with the exact path I would take. My opinion is that Scotland should always go for Ireland at the start. Unless you get lucky in the begining against England, start with Ireland.

Actually, England can be rather easy for Scotland when its at war with France or Burgundy. But, there is of course only one way its easy: When England still has territory on continental Europe.

I have seen the English send their entire army off to fight for Gasgogne while I raped them from the rear with my small armies, winning seige after seige and killing the few spots of resistance.

Also, whenever you are not the leader of an alliance, and winning, make sure to get peace as soon as possible. I have had many triumphs turned into nothing because the enemy made peace with the alliance leader before I did.

As to the total war bit, the difference is that wars weren't really fought that way. Just because you controlled the territory didnt mean you automatically got it during war. Territory only changed through treaties, and there were probally more then a few treaties that skimped on smaller allies that proved pivotal in helping win the war.

Seeing as I have scottish ancestry, and always loved the ideal of Scotsmen lording it over the english, I actually purposely take a different path. I conquer the Isles, and remain as Scotland. I then spend as much time as I can trying to get the cultural assimilation events, until all of the Scottish Isles are, in fact, Scottish.

As for brittany, their is also another problem. When attacking from sea via cogs/transports, you get a minus modifier, similar to the river penalty. You also have to watch the battles carefully to see which divisons retreat during the battle. Just because the army doesnt retreat doesnt mean a few divisions dont. And Generals can defintively make a difference (damn the burgundians and their 6-8 star shock generals!!)

Bad Boy, or Infamy, helps raise your chance of revolt. And if you have low legitamacy as well, then your in trouble.

You arent restricted to just one type. You can switch the main type you use, and their IS a way to get other types, although it is diffiuclt. It requires taking territory from either A) different tech-group or B)taking territory from another country that has higher land then you do C)same thing, but the nation you take it from has different historical units, which just so happen to be different then your main-stay.

Actually, they arent worthless. Your entire army gets upgraded to the new unit. Latin medevil infantry becomes Men at Arms, and so and so forth.

More to come when its not 1am.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

Regarding rebellions I would also pay attention to the war exhaustion because it will increase the chance for rebellions. After the war it usually take years before you have nullified war exhaustion. If you are in a war then rebellions at your home soil will distract you while your enemy is attacking against you at the frontlines. Nationalistic rebels are particulary nasty if left alone because eventually provinces which they occupy will gain independence.

I like a lot about EUIII because it looks like rather simple but in practice it is more difficult and more complex than it looks like. Also, you cannot predict how other nations will develop in a long run. The only way to learn it is to play it. Knowing the era will also help to understand the game.

 

[HNT]

So, I purchased EUIII:C and H3T off Steam and have been playing the past few days. Since I'm new, I put difficulty and aggression on Easy. I picked Scotland as my country - something awesome about those plucky Scots - and I have some Scottish heritage. lol

First time - immediately I get a mission to take Oakney (I think that's the name - the island to the north). I didn't think to check their allies and attacked - only to be rubbed out in rather quick fashion by both Norway and Denmark - their allies.

Next I decided to forgo that and went after Ulster. Got them, but always have to look out for rebellions and revolts.

This time I was checking allies to make sure I don't get in over my head.

Eventually I started going after England after France and some other ally I accepted attacked them. It was nice at first as they pretty much ignored me as I took Cambria and North Umberland (I think...). Then they started attacking with larger armies. Thankfully, I think the French and whoever drew them mostly away as they again, started to leave me alone.

So I sent a 5k+ army further south into England. England was collapsing upon its self. I met little resistance as I went south - and brought another 5k army just in case. I sacked London in short fashion.

Within a few years, I had control of the entire English island except for Wessex, Cornwall and the Wales area (don't remember it's name). Reason being as they were now independent nations. It was also at this time I LOST all that territory as one of my allies made peace with them and I had to give it all back. ARRRGH!!! It's very strange not automatically getting the territory as I'm an avid Total War fan. (Rome and Empire being my favorites).

Eventually I quested south again and retook all the territory I lost in the peace and then had England cede it all for peace. I then used spies to do the legitimacy claim and then again sacked London and annexed it.

Shortly after that I took over the entire Irish island as well. By 1480, my final territories kicked into Core and I united the entire island and formed Great Britain.

I saw Brittany had a few territories (4 I think) and decided they'd be perfect for a foothold on the European continent. Holy balls...

I sent my first stack of 8k and it was obliterated by their 14k stack. So I build a whole bunch more cogs and others and sent my own 12k+ stacks - and watched them get obliterated as well.

The Papal states were allies of Brittany, so I had to deal with their ships - not too bad as a few large battles ended that threat.

I continually sent stack after stack into Brittany to take out their army, but I just couldn't kill it! I was using whole Latin Knight armies and just getting slaughtered. This went on for probably 5-8 YEARS. That is a LONG time in-game, even at high compression rates.

Finally, after some time, I captured a territory and played "chase the Brittany army" for what seemed like forever. A few times, I lost and had to send new stacks in, hoping to get there before their stack replenished.

Unfortunately, this is where things started to unravel. I'm constantly getting Nationalistic uprisings on England and Ireland. Same with Brittany after I control it. I find that my revolt % is up around 30% in almost all my territories. Stability is taking a nose dive.

Eventually, around 1520, I can't keep up and just quit as there are too many rebellious territories and I can't make armies fast enough.

Overall, I like this game. Very different than Total War. I must say that I love the depth. Choosing how your country is set up, what laws it passes, National Ideas, etc. are great! I love it!

However... I dislike how tacked on the battles feel. Very disappointing. I mean... You have one choice in infantry and one choice in cavalry? When you upgrade land tech you get another - and they're all worthless? It's almost like this game doesn't want you to go to war. I really wish you had nitty-gritty control of the battles like in the Total War series. Heck, meld the overland map and other features of EU and give me the RTS of Total War and it's perfect!

I find I like this game a lot more than I anticipated. I'm not surprised in what I dislike about it, but I'm surprised by what I do like.

Thanks for reading.

You're wellcome . Promising first game. Some important points:
1) If you're at war and you are not the allicance leader, your conquests will possibly be in vain when the leader on your side ignores your achievements.
2) Newly gained territory will suffer from revolt risk for several decaded due to nationalism, unless it's a core. It's a good idea to have an army available just to crush rebels.
3) war exhaustion (WE) drives up revolt risk. So you got to be careful starting new wars if you just gained territory. It's often better to wait some years in order to get rid of WE, regain manpower; expand your army to the new force limits, and reduce your revolt risk a bit.
Cheers.

 

[CybrSlydr]

Thanks for the input folks.

I did the full knight armies because I read on here somewhere that in the beginning that's what you should do.

I did use Generals. Due to my two reconquests of England, my Army Tradition was up around 75%. I had some really AWESOME generals. I always made sure to get them to full strength.

I'm thinking my problem is I'm trying to play this game too fast. I'm used to steamrolling and you can't really do that in this game.

As for getting different types, at the point when I quit, I had like tech level 15 land and naval. I had the Galloglaich Infantry and the second cavalry type. When I took over Brittany, I gained some artillery as well I believe.

You say I should expand my army to the new force limits - I thought that would be a bad idea because of how expensive their upkeep would be. I had kept a relative few amount of troops around until I was going to go invade so I wouldn't have to worry about bankrupting.

 

[Najs]

You say I should expand my army to the new force limits - I thought that would be a bad idea because of how expensive their upkeep would be. I had kept a relative few amount of troops around until I was going to go invade so I wouldn't have to worry about bankrupting.

You must balance army size versus monthly expenses, and as long as you go out positive at the end of the year you're good to go.

If building more troops mean you go negative each year you will probably just have to live with it until you can get more cores.

 

[CybrSlydr]

With the 4:6:1 and 4:8:1 ratio armies, is that 4 cavalry, 6 infantry, 1 artillery?

 

[anomanderus]

questions, why all latin knight stacks for attacking? first, chevachee is better for attacking, second, if you have a mix of infantry and cavalry, you get a bonus, and your cavalry will flank the enemy. the ideal stack is either 4:6:1 or 4:8:1 according to AAR's. i advise that you restart from the beggining, and use these stacks. Also, did you have any generals? were all regiments at full strength? did you land your troops at a province adjacent to their troops? etc. minor details that could affect the overall outcome of the battle. also. since you are having uprisings all the time, keep some stacks on the home front. i keep 50000 in my france game. currently at 350/20 or so for BB, so i've got rebels coming up even faster than wack a mole games.
edit: my personal way of invading is to use 4:6:0 stacks, and follow up after their army has been destroyed with 0:1:1 armies.

Klingawesomeness, I still don't understand your signature. It confuses me to no end.

 

[anomanderus]

You're wellcome . Promising first game. Some important points:
1) If you're at war and you are not the allicance leader, your conquests will possibly be in vain when the leader on your side ignores your achievements.
2) Newly gained territory will suffer from revolt risk for several decaded due to nationalism, unless it's a core. It's a good idea to have an army available just to crush rebels.
3) war exhaustion (WE) drives up revolt risk. So you got to be careful starting new wars if you just gained territory. It's often better to wait some years in order to get rid of WE, regain manpower; expand your army to the new force limits, and reduce your revolt risk a bit.
Cheers.

To add to what he said about not being alliance leader, unless playing a multiplayer game you should always peace out before your AI alliance leader. This is because the AI is a leeching asshole only good for distracting an enemy while you grab a few provinces and then peace out. Otherwise you will get nothing from the AI in the peace. And that is why I really hate AI allies, aside from the other reason of them always going to war without CBs and lowering my stab for wars I have nothing to gain in.

 

[Slargos]

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times:

There is no difference between attacking and defending when it comes to unit strength, all units have the same strength whether they are attacking or defending.

The offensive/defensive values determine casualties inflicted and taken, nothing else.

Chevauchee is better at inflicting morale damage and soaking casualties while knights are reversed. (IIRC)

Essentially, a country with low manpower should focus on units that ensure the enemy routs before they have time to kill too many of your guys, while a country with a lot of manpower doesn't need to worry about this and can instead focus on killing as many of the opponent's guys as possible so as to deplete the flower of their youth and make their home provinces bitch and moan.

 

[Trebond]

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times:

There is no difference between attacking and defending when it comes to unit strength, all units have the same strength whether they are attacking or defending.

The offensive/defensive values determine casualties inflicted and taken, nothing else.

Chevauchee is better at inflicting morale damage and soaking casualties while knights are reversed. (IIRC)

Essentially, a country with low manpower should focus on units that ensure the enemy routs before they have time to kill too many of your guys, while a country with a lot of manpower doesn't need to worry about this and can instead focus on killing as many of the opponent's guys as possible so as to deplete the flower of their youth and make their home provinces bitch and moan.

So that is why England & France have the Chevauchee and not hte latin knight as cav. unit ..! Simply because they dont have to worry about casualties, because of the big manpower pool.

Nice to know.. (we learn something new every day).

 

[naggy]

For army composition:

4 cavalry + 8-12 infantry early game (until tech 20 or so).
4 cavalry + 10-14 infantry, with one stack having 1:1 infantry/artillery (tech 20-30)
4 cavalry + 12-16 infantry + 12-16 artillery (after tech 30)

The reason is that artillery adds half their offensive power from the back row, and gives half their defensive pips to the infantry in front of them. Early on, that's practically nothing, but as the tech modifiers progress, it gets devastating (if you look at the battles in my HTTT Prussia AAR, you'll see lots of death being dished out this way).

 

[Malurous]

I did the full knight armies because I read on here somewhere that in the beginning that's what you should do.

That's how it was in previous versions. You may have read something that wasn't recent?

I'm thinking my problem is I'm trying to play this game too fast. I'm used to steamrolling and you can't really do that in this game.

Definitely, that's a common problem. Steamrolling in the beginning of the game with a non-major country is something that only the most skilled (in that type of game) players can do. Once you've patiently established a strong power base, it's a more manageable style. And still not something you can master without practice.

You say I should expand my army to the new force limits - I thought that would be a bad idea because of how expensive their upkeep would be. I had kept a relative few amount of troops around until I was going to go invade so I wouldn't have to worry about bankrupting.

It all boils down to how much you can afford and how much you need. If you need more than you can afford, there are two options: build new troops when you need them, or reduce your maintenance a little during peacetime. It's a matter of taste which solution, or combination of them, you use.

 

[selkie]

For army composition:

4 cavalry + 8-12 infantry early game (until tech 20 or so).
4 cavalry + 10-14 infantry, with one stack having 1:1 infantry/artillery (tech 20-30)
4 cavalry + 12-16 infantry + 12-16 artillery (after tech 30)

The reason is that artillery adds half their offensive power from the back row, and gives half their defensive pips to the infantry in front of them. Early on, that's practically nothing, but as the tech modifiers progress, it gets devastating (if you look at the battles in my HTTT Prussia AAR, you'll see lots of death being dished out this way).

Why not add another four regiments of artillery to cover the cavalry as well? I would think having more robust cavalry would be an undeniable plus.

 

[unmerged(69928)]

Why not add another four regiments of artillery to cover the cavalry as well? I would think having more robust cavalry would be an undeniable plus.

1- Expense... ARTy are expensive.
2- Front line placement... If you happen to run up against a larger army, you run the risk of ARTy getting stuck on the front line. Casualties will be higher.
3- CAV Flanks the formation, outside the lines. ARTy doesn't flank, and Flank doesn't have a second line.

I personally use 1/2 ARTy to INF max, and it changes based on enemy army composition. You can't always nail the ideal, but the cost vs casualty infliction ratio is pretty darn good. Particularly useful in a large spread out empire.

******

As for the Original Post...:

Some points to ponder...

-HT³ almost requires mixed armies. You can use all CAV, but the defense bonus to INF and the Army bonus for a proper mix are freebies that should never be ignored. (50% and 25% respectively IIRC) This >>> LINK <<< goes in depth about army compositions and why.
-Always bear in mind that army composition, army position, being on offense / defense and any bonuses or maluses applied will effect the outcome of battles more so than just the number of men involved. This is why you had such a hard time with Brittany... They had tremendous advantages and bonuses against you.
-Position, composition and being on the Defensive can overcome a larger army.
-Secondary attackers, timing and attacking from a defensive stand will greatly increase the chance of victory when on the offensive.
-When Attacking, bring more men than you think you need. Many more. Always be sure you out number the enemy.
-Don't chase unless you know you will win.
-Learn what Attrition(ATT) is, and make it your #1 priority to avoid it if at all possible.
-Learn what War Exhaustion (WE) is, and make it your #2 priority to avoid it if at all possible.
-Learn to set up your economy properly. A good foundation lets you avoid the many problems of warring and army maintenance. (Especially if you like to keep high or full maintenance and lower troop numbers overall as I do...)
-BB is your friend... And your enemy. In HT³ it's called "Infamy". Learn it's limits and what you can do with it. Or ignore it and become the target of every nation on earth if you just want a war. Just don't lose any stability...

Battles are deeper than you think, but a proper strategy will make you very successful and eliminate the frustrations of the battle mechanics...
This will allow you to concentrate on all the other deeper aspects and role playing this game allows for, and will greatly enhance the game experience.
Nice post BTW. Very well written and I hope to see more...

T

 

[Slargos]

For army composition:

4 cavalry + 8-12 infantry early game (until tech 20 or so).
4 cavalry + 10-14 infantry, with one stack having 1:1 infantry/artillery (tech 20-30)
4 cavalry + 12-16 infantry + 12-16 artillery (after tech 30)

The reason is that artillery adds half their offensive power from the back row, and gives half their defensive pips to the infantry in front of them. Early on, that's practically nothing, but as the tech modifiers progress, it gets devastating (if you look at the battles in my HTTT Prussia AAR, you'll see lots of death being dished out this way).

If you can afford it, and you usually can, there's no reason to use infantry in line armies at all at the very least until techs 16-18 or thereabouts.

 

[Johan]

If you can afford it, and you usually can, there's no reason to use infantry in line armies at all at the very least until techs 16-18 or thereabouts.

You do take alot more casualties with that tactic though, and are vulnerable to bad terrain penalties when offensive.

 

[Slargos]

You do take alot more casualties with that tactic though, and are vulnerable to bad terrain penalties when offensive.

I will readily admit that I haven't fought enough wars in MP to say whether it's actually a good tactic or not, but it seems to be working well enough against the AI. You just need to be ready to disengage if you end up in a battle with terrain penalties against a competent leader and enough bad rolls in the beginning of the battle.

 

[naggy]

You do take alot more casualties with that tactic though, and are vulnerable to bad terrain penalties when offensive.

Exactly. The HTTT tactics modifier and the terrain penalties make all-cavalry almost worthless for attacking anyone outside of plains. God help you if you have to root someone out of mountains. While yes, you can retreat, it's not as useful once you have to manage multiple armies on multiple fronts, and the AI occasionally will hunt you down and wipe you out.