Battles length

[zivf22]

Doesn't morale represent the organization of armies too.

Of course. But it wont help you when sibirean reinforcements arrive just in time.

 

[gdj]

We assume russia declares war on prussia in 1750. Both have stacks of same size no to exceed supply Limits. Prussia might have a few stack in comparison of russia but better organized troops

You often cite Prussia as an example here, but their military ideas and traditions dont really qulify them as "small" or "weak". What we have here is a typical example of quality vs. quantity. Your suggestions will tilt the balance deicisively to quantity.

Also, irrespective of army composition and good generals: things can always simply go wrong due to bad luck. It happens. Thats what RNG is for.

 

[zivf22]

You often cite Prussia as an example here, but their military ideas and traditions dont really qulify them as "small" or "weak". What we have here is a typical example of quality vs. quantity. Your suggestions will tilt the balance deicisively to quantity.
Also, irrespective of army composition and good generals: things can always simply go wrong due to bad luck. It happens. Thats what RNG is for.

Could you explain how my Suggestion favors quantity. Wouldnt a single good army with my suggestions perform better when taking out enemy stack one at a time instead of being stuck in a battle with all of the enemy stacks at once?

And yes some RNG element is needed but consider that a 9 vs 1 roll outweighs everything you can stack in your favour


My suggestions also only consider a more realistic Approach. I never played such a mod so not sure it will be more fun/intense then th current System when the only thing matters is Arrival time.

 

[gdj]

Could you explain how my Suggestion favors quantity. Wouldnt a single good army with my suggestions perform better when taking out enemy stack one at a time instead of being stuck in a battle with all of the enemy stacks at once?

Because the AI does not react like this.

Generally speaking, smaller nations can win against larger ones by 1) delaying the enemy until allies arrive and 2) concentrate their forces in a specific area while forcing the enemy to split up, thus gaining a temporary local superiority in numbers.

Let´s say your enemy has 5 stacks, each representing 20% of a significant force. In that case it is feasible (given room to maneuver) to throm 80% of your army at one of these stacks, while using the remaining 20% to distract the other stacks. Short battles will more likely mean that your 20% cannot hold the enemy reinforcements, your temporary local superiority might be too short.

It sounds abstract, but i have once defeated the Ottomans with their 44+ army with my 11 regiment Serbian Army without allies that way. It even involved suicide attacking reinforcing armies with mini stacks of 2 mercs just to delay them. Even sorties from garrisons play a role here.

EDIT: note that without RNG this might not have worked, considering their god sultan as a general and their better early infantry.

 

[zivf22]

But with shorter battle there is no Need delaying armies. They wont make it in time anyway (unless a few seaging nearby come at you at the same time).

 

[ChildeR]

because the weaker Nation has a better General, army composition or more discipline. we assume both have same size stacks because of attirtion

I meant the army that would, all factors considered, lose the battle. If it's deterministic, you know (or could calculate) in advance whether you will win or lose. Why would you engage if you know you will lose?

 

[gdj]

But with shorter battle there is no Need delaying armies. They wont make it in time anyway (unless a few seaging nearby come at you at the same time).

Thats true for the first battle, but when the other 4 stacks have spotted you...

Even suicidal 2-stacks would not hold them long enough with "near-instant" battles until you can safely outmaneuver them (or completely retreat back into the fog of war), provided that travel times stay the same.

 

[zivf22]

I meant the army that would, all factors considered, lose the battle. If it's deterministic, you know (or could calculate) in advance whether you will win or lose. Why would you engage if you know you will lose?

Well i wouldnt. And without good allies ist a lost war (like when GH declares war on ryazan). Unless they split when sieging.

 

[klandri]

Because you are playing a computer game.

What's the mechanical reason for it?

 

[GC13]

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.

Does this mean that in 1.14 if an enemy stack enters the same administrative division as my regiment of mercenaries, who were just leaving anyway, they won't overrun my mercs instantly?

Or were you saying that armies in EU4 use the same teleportation technology my generals use? Because if so, can I leave my leaders in a friendly province and teleport my army to them?

 

[spinoza013]

I just look at it as a campaign and not a single Battle. If somehow One long battle could be interpreted as several battles it could help with the lack of immersion.

An idea I have is just a simple one. Each different Fire, Shock phase could be named as a separate battle. Each could have their own individual battle report.

It doesn't change any game mechanics but could be a fun and immersion building feature.

 

[Tacticus101]

Does this mean that in 1.14 if an enemy stack enters the same administrative division as my regiment of mercenaries, who were just leaving anyway, they won't overrun my mercs instantly?

Or were you saying that armies in EU4 use the same teleportation technology my generals use? Because if so, can I leave my leaders in a friendly province and teleport my army to them?

He is pointing out that there are unrealistic mechanics that exist to make the game work. Demanding a single change in the name of realism, that will have a negative effect on gameplay is not justified.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because you are playing a computer game.

I wish you wouldn't give answers like this :/. Those of us who understand at least enough gameplay implications to understand why it's a bad idea (attrition/combat width, relative impact of RNG on battle outcomes, travel times/planning/micro, positioning especially for AI etc) would never have asked it...yet it does nothing to aid the OP in understanding why it's a bad idea and/or would merit a total rework of so many game systems that it's a non-starter.

Sometimes, there's no way to get someone to understand that or it's not worth the time, but especially when most of us don't understand something that kind of answer is vexing because it leaves everyone (developer and player alike) in exactly the same spot as before the post was made.

 

[DanubianCossak]

There is a war_length_something modifier in definies.

I just tested it with set at 5, and battles take just a couple of days.

Its weird having 30k vs 27k battle end in 3 days.

Edit: this sucks, the AI cant handle it, and im not sure human would have much fun either.

 

[Tacticus101]

Sometimes, there's no way to get someone to understand that or it's not worth the time, but especially when most of us don't understand something that kind of answer is vexing because it leaves everyone (developer and player alike) in exactly the same spot as before the post was made.

Whilst I agree, I do think it helps to the extent that it makes it very clear that the Devs will never make the change.

 

[Noel84]

Well i wouldnt. And without good allies ist a lost war (like when GH declares war on ryazan). Unless they split when sieging.

You're still ignoring the fact that this makes battles more unrealistic because immediate engagements never happened, and that it removes strategies that rely on numbers, even though these strategies did exist, and only the best leaders (Frederick the great, Alexander the great, Napoleon, Hannibal and other legendary generals like them) could counteract those strategies.

 

[nOxr]

There is a war_length_something modifier in definies.

I just tested it with set at 5, and battles take just a couple of days.

Its weird having 30k vs 27k battle end in 3 days.

Edit: this sucks, the AI cant handle it, and im not sure human would have much fun either.

You can change the number of days per battle phase in the defines. At the moment it is 3. I usually play with 2 days and I think it makes wars much more dynamic and varied.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Whilst I agree, I do think it helps to the extent that it makes it very clear that the Devs will never make the change.

It would take similar #words to communicate that too, and far more directly .

 

[zivf22]

You're still ignoring the fact that this makes battles more unrealistic because immediate engagements never happened, and that it removes strategies that rely on numbers, even though these strategies did exist, and only the best leaders (Frederick the great, Alexander the great, Napoleon, Hannibal and other legendary generals like them) could counteract those strategies.

In EU4, EU3 (and maybe the entire series) battles have always started as soon as two opposing armies were in the same province so theres no Change there. You could add a skirmish Phase at the start of the battle with no casualties. You can still win by numbers when coordinating numerous armies together. I know the AI is not up to that and never claimed it would work with these changes.

 

[Noel84]

In EU4, EU3 (and maybe the entire series) battles have always started as soon as two opposing armies were in the same province so theres no Change there. You could add a skirmish Phase at the start of the battle with no casualties. You can still win by numbers when coordinating numerous armies together. I know the AI is not up to that and never claimed it would work with these changes.

You just literally admitted you're asking for a change tht will remove realism and break the AI. What GOOD things will it do.