A New Player's Thoughts

[Slargos]

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.

I don't even consider terrain for picking my battles since the terrain map mode makes my eyes hurt.

The EU2 map was clearly superior in this aspect. ( )

As for wipe outs, if you plan your armies properly you don't risk them since there will always be a second army in place to cover a retreat, or you selectively retreat before the month is up so that you can regain morale on the retreat.

I'm open to the suggestion that it's not an optimal tactic (especially since it's not clear to me what exactly the tactics modifier DOES), and it may explain some of the times I've been badly beaten without really understanding why, but it seems to me to be working just fine before infantry starts getting beefcaked around tech 20.

 

[unmerged(69928)]

I don't even consider terrain for picking my battles since the terrain map mode makes my eyes hurt.

The EU2 map was clearly superior in this aspect. ( )

As for wipe outs, if you plan your armies properly you don't risk them since there will always be a second army in place to cover a retreat, or you selectively retreat before the month is up so that you can regain morale on the retreat.

I'm open to the suggestion that it's not an optimal tactic (especially since it's not clear to me what exactly the tactics modifier DOES), and it may explain some of the times I've been badly beaten without really understanding why, but it seems to me to be working just fine before infantry starts getting beefcaked around tech 20.

With IN I'd agree totally. All CAV has distinct advantages and is much more adept at handling itself, especially early.

HT³ totally turns that on it's head though...

INF gets an additional defensive modifier to begin with, making it much better a unit early.

The early fire values are changed, and though they make for a minimal jump in actual "fire" numbers, the cost to CAV in casualties is higher. Where I would lose a few hundred, I now lose a few thousand.

The combined forces bonus (CAV @ 50% of INF) is a no brainer. Any time CAV is less than 50% INF, you get a bonus, which is 25% I believe. It's a free gift I won't turn down.

CAV is set up to work within the battle now as opposed to a separate army. Basically it takes what I used to do manually with all CAV and does it automatically within the battle itself.

CAV within the battle is designed for flanking. It has a movement of Two within the actual battle formation window compared to INF and ARTy having One. It's preferred placement is outside the lines of INF. This means in a formation, CAV can reach in from 2 squares away from the INF line. This means two max per side, which means a max of 4 CAV can flank a battle line at any given time.

Given equal numbers of INF, the army with 4K CAV has a decisive advantage:

_-_-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-_-_
-----------------------
C-C-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-C-C

Add ARTy in the back and you've got the makings of a slaughter.

I never have an army in HT³ that doesn't have 4K CAV on the outside of 8K INF minimum unless it's a small siege army. This is where the CAV can inflict the highest number of casualties, where their shock numbers work to greatest advantage due to some of the bonuses and penalties canceling out, an where they aren't in the direct line of INF fire in the formation.

If you go all CAV, you are forced to put more expensive, low fire troops in the front line highest casualty position. It simply is out classed there, especially on the attack against INF that have higher fire and higher damage infliction numbers due to having the inherent defense bonus. Not to mention the first phase of combat is the fire phase, which decreases your shock attack before you ever get a chance to use it.

When you add to that the movement of CAV reduced to 1 the same as INF, you end up with a unit that is ill equipped for the task, has a lower rate of fire, is handicapped by terrain penalties and is more expensive to lose.

Why waste the money on higher priced troops for the luxury of getting them killed by cheaper units that give better bonuses...?

Why give up the free bonuses for the "benefit" of losing more men...?

The issue is not that CAV doesn't work.

The issue is that it's simply inefficient and not cost effective to use it.

Though I must admit... I do sorely miss being able to work the battlefield like I did in 3.2. The fact everything is internalized makes for a more "grand", sit back general type of affair, and I prefer the breaks of nitty gritty action that were the types of battles you got with IN. It was a welcome change of pace that gave that little bit of the frenetic pace to raise the old blood pressure a little...

T

 

[Slargos]

I am aware of the basic theory, and come techs high-teens I employ a 4-cav 10-inf basic setup.

However, theory and practice are two different things, and in my experience with small countries and low regiment cap situations, you get more bang for your available manpower by employing cavalry only.

All else being equal, a 10 regiment cavalry army will defeat a 10 regiment infantry army most of the time, and the same goes for a combined arms 5/5, since the shock power of the cavalry still outclasses the shock power of the boosted infantry.

From my observations, of course.

 

[unmerged(1823)]

Versus the AI you can pretty much field whatever you want.. but in MP pure cavalry armies will lose more than they win.

 

[Slargos]

Versus the AI you can pretty much field whatever you want.. but in MP pure cavalry armies will lose more than they win.

Is this true before land 18 though?

From what I can tell, a lot starts to happen in the 18-20 interval.

Tactics +1 at 18, Infantry_Fire doubles to .01 at 20 (though granted still not very effective) and also at 18, tercios and maurician which markedly increase the strength of infantry.

Granted, caracolle at 22 gives a boost to cavalry but by now infantry shock has (or seems to have, at least) more or less caught up with cavalry after unit modifiers are applied.

Is the +25% combined arms modifier straight up applied to casualty calculation before or after the defense value?

Edit: I should perhaps add that most of the fighting I've done so far in this game has taken place in Scandinavia, northern Germany and Poland/Lithuania so my experience may be skewed towards less mountainous terrain which may or may not be different from the norm.

 

[unmerged(69928)]

Is this true before land 18 though?

From what I can tell, a lot starts to happen in the 18-20 interval.

Tactics +1 at 18, Infantry_Fire doubles to .01 at 20 (though granted still not very effective) and also at 18, tercios and maurician which markedly increase the strength of infantry.

Granted, caracolle at 22 gives a boost to cavalry but by now infantry shock has (or seems to have, at least) more or less caught up with cavalry after unit modifiers are applied.

Is the +25% combined arms modifier straight up applied to casualty calculation before or after the defense value?

Edit: I should perhaps add that most of the fighting I've done so far in this game has taken place in Scandinavia, northern Germany and Poland/Lithuania so my experience may be skewed towards less mountainous terrain which may or may not be different from the norm.

As I've said, all CAV isn't "wrong". It's not that it isn't workable. And as the man who knows says, against the AI you can pretty much run what you want. It's simply more cost effective to not use all CAV, especially if you're in any sort of defensive role.

The 10 CAV on 10 INF analogy isn't always applicable. The AI will usually field some sort of a mix. You'll win with your CAV if you use it with any sort of competence. But if you were going against me, you'd be facing a 4/8/0 or a 4/10/0 minimum... Probably multiples of this, rotating in and out of the battle to wear you down and maintain any control of retreat I could manage.

That would put your CAV on the front lines. As you attack me, I'd fire first. During the shock phase, I'd do little with the INF, but my CAV would come in from flanking positions as opposed to head on. I'd have a 25% bonus to my formation, plus any terrain modifiers. (And yes, where you are makes a big difference... )

Like you, I can't look at the terrain map. Drives me buggy, hurts my eyes and gives me migraines... Like you, I was always a CAV army guy, and used INF more or less as filler and siegers. I always had separate armies until at least 1550. Did very well with it.*

That has totally changed in HT³. Night and day. Terrain modifiers can kill you now. INF on defense can kill you now. Retreat into the wrong province can kill you now...

Because I can't use the terrain map, I had to devise a way to fight that worked no matter where I was. It had to be a way to maneuver and work that minimized casualties, MP loss, Attrition loss and WE. (I fight based in attrition and WE more than I do men and lines.) I still use all CAV armies as secondary support units, especially when going against larger forces. (Being able to slam them in on the 3rd or 9th day of combat is a nice shot in the arm.)

But trying to run all CAV all day like before...? Even early...? Bah. I mop the floor with my smaller mixed armies. Popping offense from defense with a few good units makes war almost too easy. As long as you don't get ahead of yourself or do anything stupid, you shouldn't lose a single battle with a good mix and proper placement. There's just too many good things going for you.

There's just no reason to beat your CAVs brains in anymore.
There's an alternative that's just as (if not even more) effective, and it's alot cheaper to boot.

Please don't misunderstand my intentions. It's not a case of right or wrong in my mind... I apologize for getting in a little deep, and I'll leave you alone now to go and play...

T

*I'm in 1630 in the AAR with 3.2, and now using mixed armies as my tech is around 28. But even now, with ARTy actually making a difference and INF not being such push overs I still routinely smack good sized reb and enemy armies with 15K pure CAV and knock them into next week...

 

[Slargos]

Unlike what appears to be a majority of the population of the internet, I can take being corrected and actually relish it because it gives me an opportunity to improve my stratagems.

I will even go so far as to accept profuse profanity as long as the vicious assault also carries with it hard statistics to support its flanking moves.

I see your point, and I am confident that I have a lot to learn still about combat in EU3, but I simply am not convinced that what you're saying is necessarily true for the first 50-100 years of the game, even in HTTT.

However, your arguments are compelling and I will certainly try them out in practice.

 

[unmerged(69928)]

Unlike what appears to be a majority of the population of the internet, I can take being corrected and actually relish it because it gives me an opportunity to improve my stratagems.

I will even go so far as to accept profuse profanity as long as the vicious assault also carries with it hard statistics to support its flanking moves.

I see your point, and I am confident that I have a lot to learn still about combat in EU3, but I simply am not convinced that what you're saying is necessarily true for the first 50-100 years of the game, even in HTTT.

However, your arguments are compelling and I will certainly try them out in practice.

If I'm not learning something I've done died...

I feel very similar in that I am able to understand the concept "if I'm wrong I'm wrong". My favorite pair of shoes aren't the most comfortable, they are the best tasting...

I don't know if I can go so far as to say I enjoy it to the extent of relishing the experience... But I feel being able to expand one's understanding is a far better use of time than blindly ranting on, trying to vainly hold to a pride that no longer exists in a given situation due to ignorance...

If it's any comfort, I had to be convinced of these things myself, much the same as having to learn of the all CAV strategies of IN and before...

I was entirely unhappy with HT³ combat when I first played... Though I still feel it less satisfying as before, being able to understand it and work within it has proven to make it far more ..."palatable"...

If you would, please kick some electronic butt for me...

T

 

[Slargos]

If I'm not learning something I've done died...

I feel very similar in that I am able to understand the concept "if I'm wrong I'm wrong". My favorite pair of shoes aren't the most comfortable, they are the best tasting...

I don't know if I can go so far as to say I enjoy it to the extent of relishing the experience...

Here's what I'm thinking: I'm usually right, but the few times someone can prove me wrong I have a rare opportunity to grow so it gives me immense satisfaction to know that I have seized one of those opportunities that come along oh so seldom.