Combat width must be reverted from the 1.19

[ironinferno]

The smaller force will even have less chances to beat a larger army, and the game will get closser to doomstacks strategy.
IS paradox trying to phase out the fact we have to pick big nations ONLY just to have a chance to win? WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO RYUKU? WHAT IS THIS BIG BLUE PARADOX?

Do big blue paradox even listen to our pleas? I edit only cuz i don't wanna bump this topic. This topic deserve to be heard forever!

 

[Schiltrus]

i agree.

 

[Timewalker102]

Nah, I think this is a good change. Why should be forced to play fun small nations like Ryukyu and Manipur? I think we should play the Ottomans and France every day instead.

/s

 

[Cyber-Freak]

There is some merit to this, where there are not only mountain passes that would limit troop movement, and combat width... but it would/should give some benefit to Native Americans who were quite adept at hunting in forests and using gorilla warfare.

The problems Native Americans had was the fact that they would circle the English and French troops and shoot themselves because they didn't know how to use muskets and pistols efficiently.

-- Edit --
And I apparently didn't get the gist of this, and was thinking primarily of the removal of Terrain Modifiers to combat width.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Considering that you can force favorable terrain better than the AI, this starts to human favor nations as soon as they approach the combat width, which isn't very long.

Native Americans who were quite adept at hunting in forests and using gorilla warfare.

The difference between gorilla and guerrilla gave me a pretty amusing mental picture. I had to google image that one .

 

[Lajinn]

There is some merit to this, where there are not only mountain passes that would limit troop movement, and combat width... but it would/should give some benefit to Native Americans who were quite adept at hunting in forests and using gorilla warfare.

The problems Native Americans had was the fact that they would circle the English and French troops and shoot themselves because they didn't know how to use muskets and pistols efficiently.

-- Edit --
And I apparently didn't get the gist of this, and was thinking primarily of the removal of Terrain Modifiers to combat width.

In reality it was less that they were incompetent and more that the English and French soldiers used tactics that were effective vs. how the natives fought. Firing lines were somewhat effective vs guerilla fighters in some circumstances, though the immobility of firing lines was abused quite heavily by guerillas. Firing lines/squads did quite a bit however to dissuade natives from engaging in melee due to the closely packed soldiers, which was good for french/brit soldiers since they were usually heavily outclassed in a stand-up melee/man-to-man combat. Even then settlers/soldiers typically lost when surrounded/heavily outnumbered unless they had good ground/cover, muskets were cumbersome weapons and left the users extremely vulnerable during reload. And up until about the 1860's-1870's natives didn't really fight with firearms all to often, muskets weren't all to useful for their method of fighting, and pistols were of limited use. They didn't heavily adopt firearms until rifles became common, and they mastered them pretty quickly.

 

[Powder hound]

A whole new meaning to Guerilla Warfare. Like.

 

[Ulec]

They've Apple'd this one for sure.

 

[Sunbro9901]

Nah, I think this is a good change. Why should be forced to play fun small nations like Ryukyu and Manipur? I think we should play the Ottomans and France every day instead.

I don't know if it's sarcasm or for real. I completely support the return of combat width penalty, cuz there is no difference between fighting in flat farmlands and fighting in mountains, in 1.19. I still remember how I got my ass kicked when I tried to fight Austria in the mountainous province while playing as Ottomans (It was patch 1.15.1, IIRC). Now you just curb stomp weaker enemy without any difficulty.

 

[lolada]

I would rather have shorter battles than combat width if i have to choose. Combat width doesn't really help much to defender because attacker just bring in more bodies.

Combat width is nice concept, they should really think about it and return it in the game - while also keeping battles duration short.

 

[Yugoslavs]

Maybe the should tie it with mil tech. For instance mil tech 15 eliminates combat width penalties in mountains.

 

[Ulec]

Maybe the should tie it with mil tech. For instance mil tech 15 eliminates combat width penalties in mountains.

Tying mechanics like combat width to technology normally makes a lot of sense. But in this case not sure whether it would. What they could do instead would be to revert combat width to how it used to be in terms of terrain effects and instead add having full combat width or at least an increased amount as an idea to one of the idea groups rather than tech.

Because if anything, technology later on brought the necessity of actual supply chains thanks to larger numbers of infantry and artillery as well as ammunition and equipment needs. Tying the aforementioned bonus to an idea instead, also perhaps giving it as a national idea to certain nations (hills, mountains: Switzerland, Austria; marshes: the Dutch and English?; jungles: Indian and Malay countries?; woods, forests, etc. You get the idea)

What I am suggesting is essentially this:

Mountains: -50% Combat Width
Hills, Highlands, Marshes, Jungles: -25% Combat Width
Woods, Forests: -20% Combat Width

An Idea or Idea Group Finisher: Half Combat Width Penalty from Terrain
National Ideas for Certain Countries: No Combat Width Penalty from One Type of Terrain Befitting the Country (Swiss Alpine Training: No malus on mountains for instance; or mountains and hills. Use that to balance it out, that's your job Paradox.)

This way you also add more flavour to the countries.

 

[Alerias]

Old Combat Width, attacker dice penalties and battles in forts defaulting to the fort owner automatically. Gotta pick two out of three to keep bad terrain forts attackable.. and width changes also ensured battle lengths were reasonable. Its not such a bad change IMO, I agreed with it. There's such a thing as giving too many advantages to the defender.

 

[Ulec]

Old Combat Width, attacker dice penalties and battles in forts defaulting to the fort owner automatically. Gotta pick two out of three to keep bad terrain forts attackable.. and width changes also ensured battle lengths were reasonable. Its not such a bad change IMO, I agreed with it. There's such a thing as giving too many advantages to the defender.

Well, you're defending after all. No one said it should be easy to get a mountain fort sieged.

 

[defekt]

It's a bizarre change that I don't fully understand the motives for. If battle length was a reason for the change then why not address the battle length by boosting inflicted losses rather than removing combt width limitations.

I can't help feeling that this is one simplification too far.

 

[highsis]

This goes along with the removal of hard/very hard difficulty's AI's frequent use of condottieri.

A dev said they deemed that too unpredictable and hard. I guess they want to flat out difficulty so that 'unexpectable' doesn't happen and a side with larger number always wins.

It's how it has been with other mechanics too. I think disaster should actually be based on a random chance system rather than % which means as a player you will NEVER EVER get a disaster.

I think this change is stupid. Even if I mod it back in AI will not take it into account.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's a bizarre change that I don't fully understand the motives for. If battle length was a reason for the change then why not address the battle length by boosting inflicted losses rather than removing combt width limitations.

I can't help feeling that this is one simplification too far.

It's defender-favored on average. Unless defender absolutely can't get to CW, they can force enormous attrition on mountains AND get a -2 slapped on enemies alongside flanking. Previously sieging mountain would let you use smaller forces and still not get caught out because the width was smaller, allowing time to reinforce before egregious casualties.

A dev said they deemed that too unpredictable and hard. I guess they want to flat out difficulty so that 'unexpectable' doesn't happen and a side with larger number always wins.

That certainly does seem to be the case. This one is less impactful than:

- Multiple severe nerfs to attrition
- Infinite merc pool
- Nerf to retreat/re-engage (component nerf to #'s but also to tactics in general)
- Removal of assaults as a viable option in the mid-late game
- Relieving a fort giving defender bonuses

It still has that effect of rewarding just throwing bodies around, and it's still an extra defender buff in a game with a few too many. Very little has been introduced in terms of moving units/tactical decision-making to offset for the above.

 

[defekt]

It's defender-favored on average.

Good.

 

[gucci]

I am appaled at this change. I had two austria runs last night that both failed miserably, first against Burgundy and then against Venice. My precious austrian mountains are useless!

I thought the first failure was a fluke but the second restart failure proved to me something changed drastically.

Paradox you might as well rename all the terrain grassland because thats what this created. Absolute garbage change.

 

[Yxklyx]

I don't understand this change at all. I'll be playing with 1.18.