Decisive battles

[5678]

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

Exactly. Which is why they should do a better job of modelling siege warfare... Not sure how what you said contradicts what I said.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Worstly, the wheat fields and vineyards will lay fallow.

The amount of men in armies and casaualties was miniscule compared to population, so in some way ever-replenishing manpower of EU II was right (although only in a way, of course)

 

[KaRei]

Not sure how what you said contradicts what I said.

I only comment your worries about discarding siege warfare

 

[Skarion]

The amount of men in armies and casaualties was miniscule compared to population, so in some way ever-replenishing manpower of EU II was right (although only in a way, of course)

I've always been interested in the population explosions which happends under war.

Of some reason the human mind makes us get more children under war, and in some way or another a larger % of them become boys then under peacetime.

This way countries could be in war in a very large time and still have the same rise of the population as most countries that were peacefull.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

I've always been interested in the population explosions which happends under war.

Of some reason the human mind makes us get more children under war, and in some way or another a larger % of them become boys then under peacetime.

This way countries could be in war in a very large time and still have the same rise of the population as most countries that were peacefull.

Well you'll need to show me some numbers because if you look at the Italian Wars during the 6th century (Byzantium campaign), after 19 yrs of war the population decreased by half.

 

[hjarg]

Hmm, 30 Years Wars casualities amongst Germans are estimated from 15-30% Quite a lot...

Skarion here forgets that the war isn't fought only between two armies, but soldiers also like to pillage and loot local peasants. Not to mention famine when the fields are burnt etc.

Edit: Great Northen War (1700-1710 in Estonia) managed to kill about 1/3rd of Estonias populace. Tatar raiding parties, normal looting soldiers and a plague that followed...

 

[alvaro]

if the ratio of troops (and techs) had a direct effect on peace conditions from the first battle that could lead to a more realistic effect on peace resolutions. Would it drive to fast warmongering? it's a possibility specially if it's about a human player. This reminds me that I think BB should have a bigger impact on the game to simulate properly the european balance of powers.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

I've always been interested in the population explosions which happends under war.

Of some reason the human mind makes us get more children under war, and in some way or another a larger % of them become boys then under peacetime.

This way countries could be in war in a very large time and still have the same rise of the population as most countries that were peacefull.

During the war? During the war, birthrate falls, actually. After, boom happens after, and is quite understanable, although i can elaborate if you want.

Well you'll need to show me some numbers because if you look at the Italian Wars during the 6th century (Byzantium campaign), after 19 yrs of war the population decreased by half.

Lots of reliable data i guess? It can happen on limited area (ancient Greeks had nice habit of killing of whole cities), and is often augumented by emigration, or rather fleeing of people (i would if i had to endure all those pillaging armies, anyway), and famine, and disease.

Hmm, 30 Years Wars casualities amongst Germans are estimated from 15-30% Quite a lot...

Skarion here forgets that the war isn't fought only between two armies, but soldiers also like to pillage and loot local peasants. Not to mention famine when the fields are burnt etc.

And in some areas even over 50%. Still, 30 years, is a lot of time for all those things i mentioned to take serious toll.

 

[Spricar]

I've always been interested in the population explosions which happends under war.

Of some reason the human mind makes us get more children under war, and in some way or another a larger % of them become boys then under peacetime.

This way countries could be in war in a very large time and still have the same rise of the population as most countries that were peacefull.

maybe this has something to do with it:

Why not? Be it exhaustion, starvation, desertion, diseages, small skirmishes, accidents while raping and pillaging?

 

[hjarg]

Still can't get over that part, can you

 

[unmerged(27108)]

Lots of reliable data i guess? It can happen on limited area (ancient Greeks had nice habit of killing of whole cities), and is often augumented by emigration, or rather fleeing of people (i would if i had to endure all those pillaging armies, anyway), and famine, and disease.

Well, I have some here provided by my university teacher of History (optional course I took on Italy from 476 to 1530).

 

[stnylan]

To some degree isn't this a little like being unable to see the wood from the trees? Truly decisive single battles were rare, exceptionally rare, no matter how significant they might be for a country's development tens or hundreds of years down the line. Most apparently decisive battles are only 'decisive' because they are, in hindsight, the culmination of a long process. Naseby is seen as the deciding battle of the English Civil War, but there were a lot of battles beforehand, and not a few afterwards before everthing was decided. The same might be said of Waterloo, or Bosworth Field.

Given that, is it worth trying to calculate some complicated system of deciding whether this or that battle was 'decisive'. Truly decisive victories in wars usually resulted simply with the destruction of the enemy army, either in one battle (very rarely) or throughout many battles (much more common). That seems to be enough.

I agree with the sentiments on army size though.

 

[alvaro]

To some degree isn't this a little like being unable to see the wood from the trees? Truly decisive single battles were rare, exceptionally rare, no matter how significant they might be for a country's development tens or hundreds of years down the line. Most apparently decisive battles are only 'decisive' because they are, in hindsight, the culmination of a long process. Naseby is seen as the deciding battle of the English Civil War, but there were a lot of battles beforehand, and not a few afterwards before everthing was decided. The same might be said of Waterloo, or Bosworth Field.

Given that, is it worth trying to calculate some complicated system of deciding whether this or that battle was 'decisive'. Truly decisive victories in wars usually resulted simply with the destruction of the enemy army, either in one battle (very rarely) or throughout many battles (much more common). That seems to be enough.

I agree with the sentiments on army size though.

I agree with you on the the reasoning of long process achievements represented by a decisive battle. But from the game point of view it might make more sense if battles would take countries into negotiations rather than succesful sieges unless the capital cities.

 

[George LeS]

I agree with you on the the reasoning of long process achievements represented by a decisive battle. But from the game point of view it might make more sense if battles would take countries into negotiations rather than succesful sieges unless the capital cities.

Thanks for getting back to the main point of the thread. How often was it necessary to conquer a whole country to win a clear victory? (I mean pre-Buonoparte, which EUIII is going to be). In principle, battles should be a bigger part of war score. How to define it, I'm still unclear. Along the same lines, a successfull siege might be more significant than the city's point value (mostly economic) would indicate. Again, though, I don't see any clear way to define it for the game.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

Warscore from battles should be based on the size of the armies involved and the reletive losses on both sides. Even to the point where the victor does not always recieve war score. If two large armies meet eachother, and one completely annihilates the other, there should be a very large warscore boost. If one retreats but suffers the same losses as the opposition, there should still be a warscore boost, but it should be minimal. If a defender manages to beat off an attacking army, but is down to 200 men and the attacking army retains 90% of its force, only having been beaten by morale barely, there should really not be any warscore gain at all. Killing off small, individual stacks of army units should not give much warscore individual, but if you manage to kill 20,000 men this way, it should give similar warscore to decisively killing them in a single battle, not 20 times the warscore.

At the beginning of the game, decisive battles should be rare, and thus the main way of accumulating warscore should remain capturing territory. However, as time progresses and technology advances, decisive battles should become more and more common.

 

[5678]

I only comment your worries about discarding siege warfare

Oh, sorry.

 

[Spricar]

Warscore from battles should be based on the size of the armies involved and the reletive losses on both sides. Even to the point where the victor does not always recieve war score. If two large armies meet eachother, and one completely annihilates the other, there should be a very large warscore boost. If one retreats but suffers the same losses as the opposition, there should still be a warscore boost, but it should be minimal. If a defender manages to beat off an attacking army, but is down to 200 men and the attacking army retains 90% of its force, only having been beaten by morale barely, there should really not be any warscore gain at all. Killing off small, individual stacks of army units should not give much warscore individual, but if you manage to kill 20,000 men this way, it should give similar warscore to decisively killing them in a single battle, not 20 times the warscore.

At the beginning of the game, decisive battles should be rare, and thus the main way of accumulating warscore should remain capturing territory. However, as time progresses and technology advances, decisive battles should become more and more common.

that's a very good solution. The only problem is, how to implement this in practice, eg. how to keep track and calculate it...

 

[KaRei]

that's a very good solution. The only problem is, how to implement this in practice, eg. how to keep track and calculate it...

If you remember to my propose of calculating warscore as percentage losses from support limit, it could be used. Game will calculate warscore that you'll get for killed enemies and a warscore that you'll loss for your own casualities. Both will be aplicated to final warscore and the result will be, that if two same armies end battle with same losses, it will have minimal effect to warscore. But if you kill more soldiers than you loss, you will get a possitive warscore. If you destroy whole army, it could be supposed that your losses are much smaller than on the enemy side, so you will get a large warscore boost.

 

[alvaro]

If you remember to my propose of calculating warscore as percentage losses from support limit, it could be used. Game will calculate warscore that you'll get for killed enemies and a warscore that you'll loss for your own casualities. Both will be aplicated to final warscore and the result will be, that if two same armies end battle with same losses, it will have minimal effect to warscore. But if you kill more soldiers than you loss, you will get a possitive warscore. If you destroy whole army, it could be supposed that your losses are much smaller than on the enemy side, so you will get a large warscore boost.

I don't think that system maybe useful in case of huge weak enemy armies. I mean it has its importance but I think that the remaining troops after a battle should have its importance as well. Anyway what you say must be taking into account to avoid human players not caring about losing troops because they know that they can recover in a couple of months by building cheap armies. This is also a reason why to consider techs as well because other wise, the evil player would go for low moral-cheap units to start every war with advantageous peace conditions.

 

[KaRei]

I don't think that system maybe useful in case of huge weak enemy armies. I mean it has its importance but I think that the remaining troops after a battle should have its importance as well. Anyway what you say must be taking into account to avoid human players not caring about losing troops because they know that they can recover in a couple of months by building cheap armies. This is also a reason why to consider techs as well because other wise, the evil player would go for low moral-cheap units to start every war with advantageous peace conditions.

I don't know what you ment with this (I didn't understand it at all - not english). Did you speak about weak morale armies that they could be good source of warscore boost?