Battles length

[martin_6]

The average late medieval/early modern time battle ended within a day. In EU4 however, the battle that lasts a week is relatively short one and it's not very rare when some ends after a month. It's ahistorical and ridiculous. Why is it designed that way? I suppose it's kind of gameplay concession but for me it's very strange solution.

 

[gdj]

I presume it does not reflect one battle, but the sum of all battles for the control of a province. But yes, it looks weird.

Also, one day battles would make reinforcements out of the fog of war impossible. This may be somewhat unrealistic, but it probably substitutes ambushes, outmaneuvering and all kinds of ruse de guerre not modelled in the game.

 

[Holgard]

So you would prefer all early battles are instantly calculated and end within a day. Too quick for you to watch what is happening and for any hope of reinforcement? Sure it looks strange in the sense they take awhile. But because they take awhile we can have things that affect how the battle occurs.

Combat width, shock values, general pips, all of those would be background and you wouldn't be able to observe in the slightest. There would be no nail biting moments where your feverishly watching the rolls go by in a battle that could make or break your nation. Both armies are breaking and have no morale. You both rolled a 0 and you see the shock phase come, and you barely win with a 9 to their 2, shattering their army. There would be no stories you could talk about and the early to Midgame combat would be stale compared to the rest of the game.

Thank you but, I think I'll stick with my month long battles in 1444 so I can nerd out at those little boxes bashing eachother.

 

[happymix91]

If a battle lasts one or two days, it shouldn't happen immediately when two armies encounter. Instead, armies can co-exist in one province, spend time on searching opponents, face each other, decide fight or not, fight, and run&persuit while they are in the same province.

This mechanism is very hard to materialize in the game, and current battle system which reflects all of those processes in a single event doesn't hurt wars in the game that much.

 

[Holgard]

If a battle lasts one or two days, it shouldn't happen immediately when two armies encounter. Instead, armies can co-exist in one province, spend time on searching opponents, face each other, decide fight or not, fight, and run&persuit while they are in the same province.

This mechanism is very hard to materialize in the game, and current battle system which reflects all of those processes in a single event doesn't hurt wars in the game that much.

So you want the game to slow speed every time armies encounter at a province?or do you want the game speed to stay normal, but the armies phase out into an instance that portrays a battle over a day? While the rest of the world progresses at normal?

 

[happymix91]

So you want the game to slow speed every time armies encounter at a province?or do you want the game speed to stay normal, but the armies phase out into an instance that portrays a battle over a day? While the rest of the world progresses at normal?

I'm sorry but I can't understand what you exactly meant, as I'm bad at English..

 

[zivf22]

Battles should last 2-3 days. Take RNG out and increase damage per day. It hurts smaller factions more because you cant use stategies to outmanuever and fight at better conditions against each enemy army at a time because of reinforcements. S currently winning any battle as Prussia in seven years war Scenario is impossible because reinforcement from hungary have enough time to join at the battle of prague.

 

[gdj]

Battles should last 2-3 days. Take RNG out and increase damage per day. It hurts smaller factions more because you cant use stategies to outmanuever and fight at better conditions against each enemy army at a time because of reinforcements. S currently winning any battle as Prussia in seven years war Scenario is impossible because reinforcement from hungary have enough time to join at the battle of prague.

This just makes strong nations stronger and weaker ones even weaker, with little regard to the maneuvering and micromanaging skills of the player. This is not good for balancing, i certainly prefer the current system.

 

[zivf22]

How will it make stronger nations stronger. With my proposal the stronger Country wontbe able to reinforce with additional stack because ist already too late

 

[gdj]

How will it make stronger nations stronger. With my proposal the stronger Country wontbe able to reinforce with additional stack because ist already too late

Well, you said it yourself:

It hurts smaller factions more because you cant use stategies to outmanuever and fight at better conditions against each enemy army at a time because of reinforcements.

 

[Wizzington]

Because you are playing a computer game.

 

[zivf22]

??
With current System:the battle of prague takes a month, enough for austrian and russian reinforcements to arrive and steamroll the Prussians.
With my proposal: prussia wins the austrian stack and proceed with the next one

 

[pikaemperor]

Well a battle taking a month is not long, a battle that takes over a year now that is long(yes believe it or not I fought a few of those against spain and portugal as cree with mil tech 5 and won ).

 

[gdj]

Well a battle taking a month is not long, a battle that takes over a year now that is long(yes believe it or not I fought a few of those against spain and portugal as cree with mil tech 5 and won ).

How could this last a year?

 

[Tacticus101]

You cant pick and choose parts of realism whilst ignoring others. This is a game, the battles take weeks to allow there to be some gameplay input other than get attacked, flip coin, see result.

It benefits the game, ensures some balance and helps represent the fact that major battles also involved a lot of manoeuvring and skirmishing before the battle even begins.

If we had battles that lasted a day there would be no player input, no reinforcements, you wouldn't even have a chance to watch battles. That is not good gameplay and does not benefit the game in any way other than fitting a selective view of realism.

 

[Wizzington]

Other thing that maybe did not happen in history: Two armies, upon finding themselves within the same administrative or geographic division immediately teleporting to each other to commence mêlée.

 

[martin_6]

Battles should last 2-3 days. Take RNG out and increase damage per day. It hurts smaller factions more because you cant use stategies to outmanuever and fight at better conditions against each enemy army at a time because of reinforcements. S currently winning any battle as Prussia in seven years war Scenario is impossible because reinforcement from hungary have enough time to join at the battle of prague.

Battles should last 2-3 days. Take RNG out and increase damage per day. It hurts smaller factions more because you cant use stategies to outmanuever and fight at better conditions against each enemy army at a time because of reinforcements. S currently winning any battle as Prussia in seven years war Scenario is impossible because reinforcement from hungary have enough time to join at the battle of prague.

This is the clue!
When I attack enemy, there is so much time that troops from the other side of country can join. It's completely unreal and ahistorical and ends with all the forces from both sides concentrated in one only province and battle of mega-stacks. That means less army micro-management, because I almost always have time to help my troops that are somewhere else. I have no possibility to crush one enemy to take care of another. If I try to do so, I will fight with both simultanously.

This is even more annoying when fighting on seas. Every bigger naval battle end like this - the whole my fleet vs. the whole fleet of rival and the one who loses, loses the war on sea (it's almost always impossible to rebuild fleet after such a battle before war ends)

I know - it's hard to invent better system. But I believe it's possible. It was possible to improve the fortresses system (that was as old as EU serie), it was possible to change traditional trade system and get rid of static historical events from EU2 (I couldn't imagine the game without them those times). I thing it is also possible.

I thing the troops in one province shouldn't be obliged to fight. There could be percentage probability of battle modified by offensive or defensive attidute of units or some other mechanism. I see some possibilities to make things better.

 

[zivf22]

Yes there woudlnt be reinforcements coming from the other side of your empire, but i also suggested to eliminate RNG elements (so no flip of a coin) so only Thing remains is your army composition AT morale Generals and other varaialbe that can be influenced so they now have a bigger Impact for each battle day.

 

[gdj]

??
With current System:the battle of prague takes a month, enough for austrian and russian reinforcements to arrive and steamroll the Prussians.
With my proposal: prussia wins the austrian stack and proceed with the next one

Let´s look at another example. You are a minor in balkans in 1444, like Serbia or Wallachia. You get declared upon by the Ottomans (it would be a miracle if they left you alone..). It takes time until your allies (hopefully someone like Poland, Hungary etc.) arrive. You have to delay the Ottomans somehow. Maneuvering, splitting theor stacks, and lastly fighting when your allied are already close is feasible. With shorter battles you pretty much can only evacuate your lands and pray that your allies "liberate" you. Considering that as of The Cossacks actual war contribution counts this is not a good solution.

But granted, there are scenarios where your point is valid as well, and where your assessment is right.

 

[Wizzington]

This is the clue!
When I attack enemy, there is so much time that troops from the other side of country can join. It's completely unreal and ahistorical and ends with all the forces from both sides concentrated in one only province and battle of mega-stacks. That means less army micro-management, because I almost always have time to help my troops that are somewhere else. I have no possibility to crush one enemy to take care of another. If I try to do so, I will fight with both simultanously.

This is even more annoying when fighting on seas. Every bigger naval battle end like this - the whole my fleet vs. the whole fleet of rival and the one who loses, loses the war on sea (it's almost always impossible to rebuild fleet after such a battle before war ends)

I know - it's hard to invent better system. But I believe it's possible. It was possible to improve the fortresses system (that was as old as EU serie), it was possible to change traditional trade system and get rid of static historical events from EU2 (I couldn't imagine the game without them those times). I thing it is also possible.

I thing the troops in one province shouldn't be obliged to fight. There could be percentage probability of battle modified by offensive or defensive attidute of units or some other mechanism. I see some possibilities to make things better.

You know what's just as unrealistic? You being able to engage an army that does not want to be engaged.

Realism is not a meaningful argument.