Battles length
- Thread starter martin_6
- Start date
-
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.
To the contrary. I suggested a Change where battles will end in a realistic amount of time. I know the ai cant cope with it because it will have to be altered when intruducing such a new battle mechanic. But ist not like the AI is a Boss right now when it still cant handle the most Basic mechanics like Attrition which resulted in a magical atrition cap.
- 2
how will making two armies randomly teleport to each other for no reason increase realism? How will removing all the setup that was key for literally every single battle in the entire EU4 time period increase realism?
And the AI will never be able to learn how to use this mechanic without being forced to constantly eat attrition.
I think you guys are looking for a game more like Empire: Total War where a battle freezes time and leaves you to command the troops on the battlefield in a single engagement. EUIV is simply not that game, it covers a lot of diplomacy and politics so battles have to be abstracted a bit.
- 4
Putting aside all the other reasons not to have one day battles, it would probably lead to more stack wipes. Instead of an enemy joining the battle and forcing you to retreat, they arrive after you have won your first battle and then proceeds to wipe your low morale army. Fixing this unintended consequence then ripples through the entire combat, retreat, and recovery systems.
- 1
When arriving the same province? like it always was. It doesnt seem like you actually read my Suggestion at the start which was simply shortening battle by increasing damage per day in battle, so they only last 2-4 days insteadof weeks.
- 3
having long battles accomadates the time it takes for pre-battle skirmishes, engagement and setup to happen. This therefore removes realism by forcing armies to teleport and removing all the setup that was key for literally every single battle in the entire EU4 time period
- 2
Right now battles start from the first day of Engagement. Armies sometimes lose thousands of men on the first day together with big morale Impact. I would hardly call that first day a skirmish or Setup where changes of Terrain take place. You can argueably add an additional Phase before shock and fire with no casualties where Terrain may Change (atleast it used to be a Chance Thing).
- 2
You seem to not understand what an abstraction is. By your logic, one cog in game fits 1k men, most places in the new world have a total population of 10k or less, china can't comfortably field more than 70k soldiers and everyone who has any money cane easily field tens of thousands of cannons. The long battles are an abstraction for skirmishes and setup.
Also you've yet to say what's good about removing the strategic setup for battle that happened in every battle during the eu4 timeline, but literally every single battle ever.
- 3
I support shortening battles, not for the sake of realism, but for the sake of gameplay. For example, using strategy to gain local superiority means that you can attack an enemy army with more troops than they have defending, despite a larger overall troop count. However, this becomes irrelevant as they can just march troops from halfway across Europe to join the battle and win. This is incredibly stupid and turns every war into a titanic clash of each sides' combined armies. Don't punish tactical and strategic play, reward it.
- 2
- 2
Then fine lets go with abstractions. Why do we even have two Phases instead of one call Battle Phase. ist all too complicated anyway i guess.
Even Long battles with Long Setups didnt take over a month.
exactly what i said earlier.
Even Long battles with Long Setups didnt take over a month.
exactly what i said earlier.
- 3
- 1
yes, but two armies entering a large area took over a month to engage.
Also you've yet to say what's good about removing the strategic setup for battle that happened in every battle during the eu4 timeline, but literally every single battle ever. I've asked you to say what's good about this 5 or 6 times now, so why haven't you answered?
- 2
- 1
Read previous pages to understand instead of jumping in the middle demanding Explanations. I already gave examples.
- 3
- 1
I'm not asking for examples, I'm asking what's good about removing the strategic setup for battle that happened in every battle during the eu4 timeline, but literally every single battle ever.
- 2
- 1
That´s pretty much what shortening the battle will cause, as i tried to outline on pages 2 and 3 in this discussion.
If its shortened you have no time to maneuver & delay the other stacks.
You will likely win the first clash, perhaps the 2nd and 3rd too, but your it is impossible for your morale & casaulties to recover fully inbetween when you stay put.
Its fine as it is.
Realism isn't an argument.
I prefer long battles with the chance of reinforcing an ongoing battle.. How ELSE can you fight an enemy doomstack of 200k... Make one yourself and swallow attrition the ai doesn't get?
Toss your realism look out of the window, and imagine your quality/defensive 50k army being attacked head on by 200k french ai stack, and you reinforce tha battle with 10 nearby province limit stacks worth of infantry.
Open a bag of chips, zoom in, go speed one, and look at the RNG gods deciding the battle.
To be honest, watching my units fire/melee at each other while praying for good combat rolls is more tense then any TV show.
Is it realistic the fight takes 2 months? No. but OH boy the adrenaline when you see your reinforcement stack joining the fight right when france would have routed you the next combat round....
would you prefer the good old 1980's way of showing a blank battle result after ONE day leaving you clueless why you lost? I wouldn't. Now I can *RAGE* if i see the AI getting 9 roll versus my 1 shock roll in the decisive moment..
Its fine as it is
Realism isn't an argument.
I prefer long battles with the chance of reinforcing an ongoing battle.. How ELSE can you fight an enemy doomstack of 200k... Make one yourself and swallow attrition the ai doesn't get?
Toss your realism look out of the window, and imagine your quality/defensive 50k army being attacked head on by 200k french ai stack, and you reinforce tha battle with 10 nearby province limit stacks worth of infantry.
Open a bag of chips, zoom in, go speed one, and look at the RNG gods deciding the battle.
To be honest, watching my units fire/melee at each other while praying for good combat rolls is more tense then any TV show.
Is it realistic the fight takes 2 months? No. but OH boy the adrenaline when you see your reinforcement stack joining the fight right when france would have routed you the next combat round....
would you prefer the good old 1980's way of showing a blank battle result after ONE day leaving you clueless why you lost? I wouldn't. Now I can *RAGE* if i see the AI getting 9 roll versus my 1 shock roll in the decisive moment..
Its fine as it is
- 1
- 1
I always say the battles representing more of a mix between a pitched battle itself and prolonged campaign with armies maneuvering around each other.
Which is fine with me, there's Total War games for instant, focuses strategic battles.
Which is fine with me, there's Total War games for instant, focuses strategic battles.
Last edited:
- 2