Dont get Defensive! Why the hell not?

[Galleblære]

But thats not the point of low-morale armies. You use your cheap, and huge manpower to create huge armies that can crush small, high quality ones. And besides, later in the game, due to tech, even nations with the lowest morale get "invincible". Not sure if there are different levels of "invincible" though.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by Galleblære
Not sure if there are different levels of "invincible" though.

There are different levels.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


There are different levels.

But maximum morale is 7.0, anything above it is lost.

 

[Galleblære]

Okay, so if maximum is 7.0, how high morale would a player with maxed out army tech, with all sliders set to the worst possible morale have? And wise-versa, does that has the sliders set for best possible morale "lose" morale due to tech advancements?

In that case, what is the maximum needed + in morale to get 7.0?

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Galleblære
Okay, so if maximum is 7.0, how high morale would a player with maxed out army tech, with all sliders set to the worst possible morale have? And wise-versa, does that has the sliders set for best possible morale "lose" morale due to tech advancements?

In that case, what is the maximum needed + in morale to get 7.0?

According to Morale FAQ and Tech tables this is what I get.

TL 60 = morale from 4.4 (3.9 if bankrupt) to 8.35 (maxed out at 7.0)

TL 23 = morale from 2.9 to 6.35

This is using all possible bonuses for max morale, including shiite religion, if you want the max:es without religious bonuses they are 7.85 and 5.85.

Having sliders set at max, and no religious bonus added, meks you max out morale at TL 60, if protestant you get 6.95 (almost there) at TL 51, which is where reformed and CRC max out.
Shiites max out at TL41.

So it seems one doesn't loose much morale from overflow.

Now the question is, is it good to have great morale, yes when superior, but shaky when inferior since your armies might prefer death instead of escaping. Is that risk bad enough to keep morale a bit lower?

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Galleblære
But thats not the point of low-morale armies. You use your cheap, and huge manpower to create huge armies that can crush small, high quality ones. And besides, later in the game, due to tech, even nations with the lowest morale get "invincible". Not sure if there are different levels of "invincible" though.

That is assuming you can get your human competitor to build only small high quality armies.
Something they are not likely to accommodate you with.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Prince Eugene
Full defensive and quantity can easily be slaughtered by quantity and full offensive. They can make just as many troops as you (well it depends on what nations) and slaughter you on the field. If they cover all of your provinces then it is over no matter how long it takes them to take the provinces.

Hmm! is that not almost word for word what I said?

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Nikolai II


According to Morale FAQ and Tech tables this is what I get.

TL 60 = morale from 4.4 (3.9 if bankrupt) to 8.35 (maxed out at 7.0)

TL 23 = morale from 2.9 to 6.35

This is using all possible bonuses for max morale, including shiite religion, if you want the max:es without religious bonuses they are 7.85 and 5.85.

Having sliders set at max, and no religious bonus added, meks you max out morale at TL 60, if protestant you get 6.95 (almost there) at TL 51, which is where reformed and CRC max out.
Shiites max out at TL41.

So it seems one doesn't loose much morale from overflow.

Now the question is, is it good to have great morale, yes when superior, but shaky when inferior since your armies might prefer death instead of escaping. Is that risk bad enough to keep morale a bit lower?

You forget one very important factor. ** Maintenance **
If you lower your maintenance to 50% the DP bonuses become more important and you will not max out your morale even as shiite with full DP bonuses.
You will however be able to afford to field an army much much bigger than someone paying full pop.

 

[Arilou]

With a High morale I've had a force of 500 cavalry in a forest defeat 10000 invaders. It was really freaky. Of course, the invaders only lost like 300 men, but they fled.

Morale can be a bitch.

 

[unmerged(9994)]

I think it's a given that low quality is better than high quality in both SP and MP games. I also(based on intuition rather than experience) think defeating armies is more important than winning sieges in MP.

The big question to me is which works better in SP, offensive or defensive? I normally set my sliders to high quality to make warmongering harder. Given that I win more battles, but don't have the manpower to assault forts, defensive seems the better choice. However, if I had quality=1 and huge armies, I would probably use assaults much more frequently. If I were using this strategy and going for WC, the siege bonus/malus on my own forts would be immaterial. But would the advantage in starving people out outweigh the advantage in storming forts? I think this probably depends on the size of the forts- small forts you'd want to assault, while large forts you'd want to sit there with the cheaper cannons. For a more peaceable nation, the advantage in your forts would make defensive better.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Castellon


You forget one very important factor. ** Maintenance **
If you lower your maintenance to 50% the DP bonuses become more important and you will not max out your morale even as shiite with full DP bonuses.
You will however be able to afford to field an army much much bigger than someone paying full pop.

I didn't mention maintenance, but it is included in the figures.

I thought you if anyone should have recognized that on sight..

At full maintenance and no religious bonus TL 60 ranges between morale 5.9 and 7.35.

(I also see I failed to fix the 7.85 to 7.35 in my previous post, go figure I was probably too tired)

 

[Galleblære]

Again, if you go for high quality, long wars will be very expensive and draining, as you will not be able to build large armies (manpower), whilst the opponent can flood you with endless waves of low morale armies that will slowly wear you down. (Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? )

The key to a high quality army is to win fast and "quick" (Hey, that sounds familiar also! )

 

[Owen]

Given the changes coming in v1.06, I am wondering if full defensive will become even less effective. I may go full offensive and quantity, using full infantry armies for besieging, with the possibility of starving them out (now it finally works - I never realised it was supposed to). The siege bonus in this case, I think, become irrelevant. You must have naval superiority for this to work though.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Eddie Teach
I think it's a given that low quality is better than high quality in both SP and MP games. I also(based on intuition rather than experience) think defeating armies is more important than winning sieges in MP.

The big question to me is which works better in SP, offensive or defensive? I normally set my sliders to high quality to make warmongering harder. Given that I win more battles, but don't have the manpower to assault forts, defensive seems the better choice. However, if I had quality=1 and huge armies, I would probably use assaults much more frequently. If I were using this strategy and going for WC, the siege bonus/malus on my own forts would be immaterial. But would the advantage in starving people out outweigh the advantage in storming forts? I think this probably depends on the size of the forts- small forts you'd want to assault, while large forts you'd want to sit there with the cheaper cannons. For a more peaceable nation, the advantage in your forts would make defensive better.

This is then dependant upon from which way you hit the WC. If you come up from below you'll hit europe when it has level 5 or 6 fortresses, and those cannot be assaulted without a breach (at least not if you want the province, if you're just looking for a way to reduce your army, feel free to go ahead) so having +1 siege speeds the process along quite nicely.

If you are going from europe when WC:ing you won't need offensive, since you can win assaults on tech superiority (and a sh*tload of cheap artillery), or siege for breach and then assault according to whatever strikes your fancy.

Offensive might be easier, though, but who needs ease in SP?

 

[unmerged(9945)]

Originally posted by Owen
Given the changes coming in v1.06, I am wondering if full defensive will become even less effective. I may go full offensive and quantity, using full infantry armies for besieging, with the possibility of starving them out (now it finally works - I never realised it was supposed to). The siege bonus in this case, I think, become irrelevant. You must have naval superiority for this to work though.

Changes? They are only doing bug fixes from now on, so I don't think strategy will change from now till 1.06.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Nikolai II


I didn't mention maintenance, but it is included in the figures.

I thought you if anyone should have recognized that on sight..

At full maintenance and no religious bonus TL 60 ranges between morale 5.9 and 7.35.

(I also see I failed to fix the 7.85 to 7.35 in my previous post, go figure I was probably too tired)

I did not say you forgot to include maintenance in your calculation. I was commenting on the fact that you assumed it would be at 100%! It is a Variable factor not fixed.

As you can see from my post I talk about Maintenance as an important influence on Morale and the cost of upkeep. I also specifically state 50%. You calculations had nothing to do with 50% maintenance. And you totally ignored the rest of the post which clearly gave the context for the opening remark.
And yes I did notice the slight error but was too nice a guy to point it out.

 

[Petrarca]

Originally posted by Castellon


You forget one very important factor. ** Maintenance **
If you lower your maintenance to 50% the DP bonuses become more important and you will not max out your morale even as shiite with full DP bonuses.
You will however be able to afford to field an army much much bigger than someone paying full pop.

This is an evil idea. I'd thought I had everything figured out, with quantity and max offensive or defensive-1. But this? This is an interesting way to get the last man out of your war effort.

 

[Owen]

Originally posted by chilliwilli


Changes? They are only doing bug fixes from now on, so I don't think strategy will change from now till 1.06.

Aha. See VKV's Siege FAQ and look at the bit that says "Extra attrition will only be applied correctly in the next 1.06 patch."

As I haven't played 1.06, I'm not in a position to know if this will work quick enough, or if cannon will still be necessary.

Still, it means you might want to siege with only infantry in high attrition, high fortress level provinces (Spain in America springs to mind), so decreasing artillery attrition.

 

[unmerged(9945)]

Thats interesting. Ok, so in 1.06 we will have bug fixes and extra attrition calculations. Better? .

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Originally posted by Nikolai II


Paying 2/3 for cannons and their upkeep...

Is this really true Nikolai II? Does the maintenance for artillery also decrease when you go defensive? I thought it only was the price for buying them that decreased.