Decisive battles

[5678]

I dont know how historic this would be. I mean wasnt this the age of siege warfare and the war of maneuvre? Perhaps towards the end, Louis XIV onwards battles gain more significance but not too much. We dont want Napoleonic style wars with a single battle effectively deciding the outcome.

Indeed, even Blenheim, considered one of the most important battles in history, didn't end the war. Siege warfare should be modelled better, not discarded.

 

[5678]

I think that sometimes, when you have enough men fighting in a battle, the winner should recieve a massive boost to warscore. This would reflect certain crucial victories where wars were decided by a single battle, like Lepanto, or Rocroi. It would also allow sides that are losing to even up the score, like at Saratoga or Malpaquet.

But a certain casualty ratio should have to be achieved, thus signifying how it took a real lead in tech or very good generalship to really win a decisive victory.

 

[5678]

How wrong you are. EU era's battles & wars didn't have such an effect on demography. Armies of the era were ten times smaller than in Vicky's era, while population was only half of it (if not more). Moreover, casualties were nowhere close to casualties of the XIXth or XXth centuries wars. So, no, raising armies should have no effect on populations.

What should be done is you should raise armies by the hundreds, not thousansd, but maintain the price per unit. That would solve the mega army problem and make armies more expensive.

 

[Yakman]

Spanish and French losses at Rocroi weren't significantly different.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

But the AI doesn't recognize this. It's not included in the game system.


How wrong you are. EU era's battles & wars didn't have such an effect on demography. Armies of the era were ten times smaller than in Vicky's era, while population was only half of it (if not more). Moreover, casualties were nowhere close to casualties of the XIXth or XXth centuries wars. So, no, raising armies should have no effect on populations.

About demographics you're porobably right.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html

About battles, I still disagree. Some Monarch would fight to the end even if big battles were lost. So, by giving good warscore for some battle and less good warsocre for some other battle makes this natural variability in behaviour void (imo)

also, if you win vs. the AI an overwhelming battle, it's easy to just siege the provinces after that and wait for the capture, even if it takes some years. Not a big issue imo.

 

[5678]

Spanish and French losses at Rocroi weren't significantly different.

But one had Conde, and the other didn't. And equipment wise they weren't that different, but they differed greatly in doctrine (something that should be modelled...). Tercio v. line infantry.

EDIT: Disregard this post. I read 'losses' as 'forces' for some reason.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

About battles, I still disagree. Some Monarch would fight to the end even if big battles were lost. So, by giving good warscore for some battle and less good warsocre for some other battle makes this natural variability in behaviour void (imo)

also, if you win vs. the AI an overwhelming battle, it's easy to just siege the provinces after that and wait for the capture, even if it takes some years. Not a big issue imo.

There you got a point. But since we've heard personalities would be introduced in EU3, I think you see the easy fix to that (some "stubborn" trait).

 

[unmerged(27108)]

There you got a point. But since we've heard personalities would be introduced in EU3, I think you see the easy fix to that (some "stubborn" trait).

Indeed, this would depends though on how this is implemented.

Might be interesting if this work out good. I would advocate that this effect is only important for the late-game stage though as siege warfare was more important in early era.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Indeed, this would depends though on how this is implemented.

Might be interesting if this work out good. I would advocate that this effect is only important for the late-game stage though as siege warfare was more important in early era.

More important, yes, but it still happened. What for all those great names, as Lepanto, Marignan, Pavia, Rocroi, etc ?

 

[5678]

Spanish and French losses at Rocroi weren't significantly different.

4,000 to 7,500 is pretty significant.

 

[Yakman]

4,000 to 7,500 is pretty significant.

Pretty common for the day.

 

[5678]

Pretty common for the day.

I dunno. You said the differences in losses weren't significant.

 

[Yakman]

They really weren't. Sounds like an average battle figure. Yet Rocroi was vitally important and ruined spanish prestige.

 

[5678]

They really weren't. Sounds like an average battle figure. Yet Rocroi was vitally important and ruined spanish prestige.

Again, I'm not sure. I thought I remembered reading a while back that most battles of the period were usually 1-1, with a slight difference due to captures, but I can't find where I read it, so I'm gonna have to give up on this one.

And I'm not disputing the importance of Rocroi. Marked the end of Spanish hegemony, beginning of French hegemony, and showed how great Conde was.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

More important, yes, but it still happened. What for all those great names, as Lepanto, Marignan, Pavia, Rocroi, etc ?

Agreed.

 

[Cakravarti]

Again, I'm not sure. I thought I remembered reading a while back that most battles of the period were usually 1-1, with a slight difference due to captures, but I can't find where I read it, so I'm gonna have to give up on this one.

And I'm not disputing the importance of Rocroi. Marked the end of Spanish hegemony, beginning of French hegemony, and showed how great Conde was.

Except that Rocroi was the culmination of 30 years of war. Hence it wasnt really that decisive. It was merely the final nail in the coffin.

 

[5678]

Except that Rocroi was the culmination of 30 years of war. Hence it wasnt really that decisive. It was merely the final nail in the coffin.

It showed that the tercio wasn't really that good anymore. Up until that point the Spanish contribution to the war had been pretty solid.

 

[arcorelli]

Except that Rocroi was the culmination of 30 years of war. Hence it wasnt really that decisive. It was merely the final nail in the coffin.

Yep, I doubt Rocroi had happened at the beginning of the war it could be that remembered. And actually, the chief relevance of Rocroi was that Spain was unable to re-create the Army of Flanders. If they could had recruit it again, no one could remember the battle today.

 

[5678]

Yep, I doubt Rocroi had happened at the beginning of the war it could be that remembered. And actually, the chief relevance of Rocroi was that Spain was unable to re-create the Army of Flanders. If they could had recruit it again, no one could remember the battle today.

And seeing as how Rocroi marks the destruction of that army, Rocroi is decisive.

 

[KaRei]

Siege warfare should be modelled better, not discarded.

If you'll want to conquer country and annex it, you'll still need to siege their cities.