Battles length

[Mr_Hobo]

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.

You don't need to delay the other stacks, because the battle will be over long before they arrive. You can even march out of the province before enemies march the 25 in between.

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....

Imagine this instead: despite superior enemy numbers, you manage to isolate an enemy stack. Your forces crush all resistance, and retreat before the enemy can pounce on you. You rejoin your forces, and your now superior armies defeat the enemy in a large clash. You win due to strategic choices, not blind luck.

 

[gdj]

Open a bag of chips, zoom in, go speed one, and look at the RNG gods deciding the battle.

Very well. Though beer is also an option instead of chips

 

[atwix]

strategic choices? 1.13 and fort mechanic got RID of 'strategically' wiping armies here and there, as it was highly unrealistic that one could wipe a stack WAY behind enemy lines.

Now, if you do a fight, you usually planned it. No more 'ah crap an army hit my small siege stack' annoyance.

And because you can focus on troop manoeuvring now, fights get more tense, as you work your way towards pushing enemy armies back.

I think the battles got more tense ever since 1.13... Enemy coalition can actually form a doomstack now, instead of player roflstomping all small nations here and there.

Battles actually matter now.. Not for warscore, but to keep your position/siege line intact.

I tend to pay lot more attention to battles now, as the fort mechanic forces one to plan them more.. Reinforcement placement and whatnot.

Ever since common sense, BIG LONG battles happen lot more, as the AI is protected from roflstomp blitzkrieg tactic. So I enjoy battle length.. It makes the battles feel like 'hey watch THIS and zoom in on terrain map NOW" instead of "are we done yet?"

 

[Mr_Hobo]

strategic choices? 1.13 and fort mechanic got RID of 'strategically' wiping armies here and there, as it was highly unrealistic that one could wipe a stack WAY behind enemy lines.

Now, if you do a fight, you usually planned it. No more 'ah crap an army hit my small siege stack' annoyance.

And because you can focus on troop manoeuvring now, fights get more tense, as you work your way towards pushing enemy armies back.

I think the battles got more tense ever since 1.13... Enemy coalition can actually form a doomstack now, instead of player roflstomping all small nations here and there.

Battles actually matter now.. Not for warscore, but to keep your position/siege line intact.

I tend to pay lot more attention to battles now, as the fort mechanic forces one to plan them more.. Reinforcement placement and whatnot.

Ever since common sense, BIG LONG battles happen lot more, as the AI is protected from roflstomp blitzkrieg tactic. So I enjoy battle length.. It makes the battles feel like 'hey watch THIS and zoom in on terrain map NOW" instead of "are we done yet?"

I actually agree that things have gotten a lot better. It's just very frustrating that you can't rush one enemy to neutralize them, and then focus on the other. Instead, the second enemy's troops arrive before you can kill the first, and you lose.

 

[Noel84]

I actually agree that things have gotten a lot better. It's just very frustrating that you can't rush one enemy to neutralize them, and then focus on the other. Instead, the second enemy's troops arrive before you can kill the first, and you lose.

which is historical and makes sense from a gameplay perspective. An army that was awaiting reinforcements could hold on by its own until they were reinforced, and wars would be way too easy if you could just stomp everyone before reinforcements came

 

[gdj]

I actually agree that things have gotten a lot better. It's just very frustrating that you can't rush one enemy to neutralize them, and then focus on the other. Instead, the second enemy's troops arrive before you can kill the first, and you lose.

It´s still possible but harder and much less likely to succeed with such a 2 front war (if i understood you correctly). It requires now that one front is made virtually impenetrable with forts, while you try to outmaneuver your enemy on the other front by bypassing his fortifications. Ever tried a naval invasion of France while playing Austria? give it a shot, you´ll like it

 

[Xinkc]

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.

I feel it's more unrealistic and unhistorical that diplomats are immortal and instantly teleport to their destination but have a travel time to come back home. Not to mention the general teleportation.

They wont win if the enemy manages to allocate a bigger stack with Terrain Advantages and and reasonable General. And France wont be able to reinforce that battle with an army stationed in brittany

How would you get France to attack a much larger stack? Are you talking about actively dumbing down the AI more? Suicide stacks like the AI does at times should be fixed, not encouraged.

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

I feel like the AI would have to be programmed to know how to group up a doomstack to counter known armies of higher quality. This is because, as I said above, suicidal AI stacks are not something that should be encouraged.

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

It takes forever and a day to move any force from Siberia to Europe by land. Having a battle last that long is so ridiculous and improbable by current mechanics that it shouldn't be considered.

 

[Mr_Hobo]

which is historical and makes sense from a gameplay perspective. An army that was awaiting reinforcements could hold on by its own until they were reinforced, and wars would be way too easy if you could just stomp everyone before reinforcements came

It's not historical, just look at the Fourth Coalition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fourth_Coalition. Napoleon conquered all of Prussia before Russian troops could assemble to meet him.

And it's bad from a gameplay perspective because it means that barring the AI being stupid with their troops (although not unlikely, that's for another thread), the war largely depends out the outcome of a couple massive battles. Prewar placement of armies are not as significant, and maneuvering in general is less important. It also means focusing on fronts is ineffective, as you need all available troops to be in the million-man mobs that assemble, usually in Central Germany. Sure, some battles should turn into Leipzigs, but not all of them.

It´s still possible but harder and much less likely to succeed with such a 2 front war (if i understood you correctly). It requires now that one front is made virtually impenetrable with forts, while you try to outmaneuver your enemy on the other front by bypassing his fortifications. Ever tried a naval invasion of France while playing Austria? give it a shot, you´ll like it

Yeah, the fort changes give me hope that massive multinational battles will be reduced.

 

[Noel84]

It's not historical, just look at the Fourth Coalition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fourth_Coalition. Napoleon conquered all of Prussia before Russian troops could assemble to meet him.

And it's bad from a gameplay perspective because it means that barring the AI being stupid with their troops (although not unlikely, that's for another thread), the war largely depends out the outcome of a couple massive battles. Prewar placement of armies are not as significant, and maneuvering in general is less important. It also means focusing on fronts is ineffective, as you need all available troops to be in the million-man mobs that assemble, usually in Central Germany. Sure, some battles should turn into Leipzigs, but not all of them.



Yeah, the fort changes give me hope that massive multinational battles will be reduced.

Russia was reeling from their defeat at Auterlitz and hod no troops anywhere near prussia.
Also, like I said earlier it shouldn't be stupidly easy to stomp every multi-front war you ever get into

 

[Mr_Hobo]

Russia was reeling from their defeat at Auterlitz and hod no troops anywhere near prussia.
Also, like I said earlier it shouldn't be stupidly easy to stomp every multi-front war you ever get into

Yet in game, it doesn't matter if they have troops near the battle. They'll still have time to join.

And I'm not saying it should be stupidly easy. But defeating units in detail should be a real game strategy.

 

[thegreatuniter]

Battles that last more than a week are very practical from a gamelplay perspe-ctive. The game is build for a few atiobs per monrh, more than a few ationd per week when in battle for realism purposes would break the game and be not at all realistic.

 

[Noel84]

Yet in game, it doesn't matter if they have troops near the battle. They'll still have time to join.

And I'm not saying it should be stupidly easy. But defeating units in detail should be a real game strategy.

Not really, if one side is crushed as easily as prussia was
Also Napleon used that "divide and conquer" strategy again. During the War of the Seventh coalition. It ended with his second worst, if not his worst, defeat ever.
The main reason he lost (along with plenty of mistakes during the battle)-the coalition gathered their forces before he could fully beat any of them. If the "divide and conquer" strategy didn't even work for Napoleon twice, why should it be common in game?

 

[Sharples88]

Because you are playing a computer game.

I guess that's the reason why generals can teleport from South Africa to Northern America in less than a day.

 

[Will Steel]

Why is it designed that way? I suppose it's kind of gameplay concession but for me it's very strange solution.

Umm...for the same reason Ming and Mughals cannot field an army of more than a hundred regiments, even though in reality both Indians and Chinese had million+ strong armies? For the same reason that admirals and generals teleport halfway across the world in moments? Because this is a game?

Sacrifices of realism made to construct a better gameplay and playability are not a bad thing. These compromises can be good in fact.

 

[atwix]

"why does it take 1 month to travel from landing ships to provinces? I can swim across the channel 30 times a month!"

"why can generals teleport all over the world? Not realistic!"

"why do diplomats live forever? Were they succeeded by their sons, who were always named the same?"

'why can cavalry do 100% damage in mountains or march territory? Unrealistic!"

"why does this province have THIS tag in year 1xxx scenario, when its clear the xxxxxxx conquered it from xxxx the year before?"

...

I could go on, but I'll quote Wiz once more... Historic Realism is NOT an argument.

I'm just glad I'm enjoying EU4 after an absence of months, are you?

Yes? Great!

Let's play ball, France

 

[Will Steel]

That said I do think that diplomats/merchants/priests should have their names randomized every few years. It IS tiresome to see diplomat Frederick go for his 965th mission to Japan to finalize the alliance deal he attempted 300 years ago, or to see priest Wang Jin the great proselityzer of 15th century China convert Jerusalem in late 18th century.

All agents should have hidden starting ages ranging between 30-50/60 and their names should randomize once they 'die' (their age reaches the limit). And once that happens the 'new' diplomat will continue the work until hee too 'dies' and his name is randomized. The cycle continues.

Just an aesthetic change but this one is actually legitimate, because having immortal agents is rather creepy.

 

[doktorstick]

Ever since common sense, BIG LONG battles happen lot more, as the AI is protected from roflstomp blitzkrieg tactic. So I enjoy battle length.. It makes the battles feel like 'hey watch THIS and zoom in on terrain map NOW" instead of "are we done yet?"

It does make micro more of a pain... because watching that battle for a month likely means something bad is happening elsewhere. The joy (or rather anxiety) of watching the battle is interrupted by managing other fronts. I've been burned by this more than once--being totally engrossed in prayer to the RNGesus and an undefended stack or mothballed fort gets snuck upon.

Now if you could keep open battle windows while you were off doing other things... +1 for awesomeness.

 

[atwix]

It does make micro more of a pain... because watching that battle for a month likely means something bad is happening elsewhere. The joy (or rather anxiety) of watching the battle is interrupted by managing other fronts. I've been burned by this more than once--being totally engrossed in prayer to the RNGesus and an undefended stack or mothballed fort gets snuck upon.

Now if you could keep open battle windows while you were off doing other things... +1 for awesomeness.

brilliant!

make a thread for that in suggestion forum!

 

[doktorstick]

I feel it's more unrealistic and unhistorical that diplomats are immortal and instantly teleport to their destination but have a travel time to come back home. Not to mention the general teleportation.

I can only assume general teleportation is a crutch for the AI. I would like to see a general be an actual 1K stack that you move around the battlefield instead of a diplomat-like mechanic.

 

[ChildeR]

That said I do think that diplomats/merchants/priests should have their names randomized every few years.

Randomized... or removed. There are no distinguishing features between "different" envoys of the same type anyway, so they aren't really individuals.