Don't you wish we could do this in EU4? (pic)

[Horn and Ivory]

Battle of Flodden (1513) comes to mind -- England gets 100% war score Vs. Scotland, after 1 battle.
My whole premise was simply that if... IF a major battle goes disastrously, it should count for a lot more war score than EU gives you. EU is way to stingy with it's war score allocation in this regard, and so when something like this happens in CK2 (and the game rewards you accordingly), it's like a breath of fresh air.

You seem to have no idea of what '100% warscore' means in EUIV terms (as opposed to CKII ones). '100% warscore' in EUIV would have meant that the Scots would have agreed to English annexation of large parts of Scotland, or other extremely harsh terms. This did not happen; and there is every evidence that the Scottish lords would have fought for years more if such a peace deal had been proposed. It ended the invasion by Scotland, but that was it. Effectively, a white peace. That's nothing remotely like 100% warscore. (Further, Flodden wasn't part of a separate Anglo-Scottish war - EUIV would represent the invasion that led up to Flodden as part of a larger war against the French (the League of Cambrai), with whom Scotland were allied. All Flodden secured was the end of active Scottish participation in this larger war.) So you've got an argument for Flodden - one of the most decisive defeats of its era, and an order of magnitide more bloody than, say, Novara - representing, at most, 20% or 25% warscore. No more than that. More than what EUIV represents, no doubt, but nowhere near what you're advocating.

In EU4, morale is exhausted, and as long as you've lasted 10 days, you essentially have space aliens that beam you up, and transport you far away to some safe place well behind the forts. Why don't you tell ME, when that has ever happened in history.

Sure: Malplaquet. Fleurus. Bicocca. Heiligerlee. Lutzen. It was notoriously difficult, throughout almost the entire era, to achieve a really descisive defeat. The way you got one, both in histroy and in game, is by cutting off your enemy's line of retreat. This could be represented better (for example, retreating over the Alps was much harder than it's represented as being), and I'd be in favour of some tweaking on those lines: but the basic principle is thoroughly historical.

Anyway, I think you could make a case for battles having, say, twice the warscore and impact on war enthusiasm they have now. But your argument as you've presented it would mean that you could attack France with the CB of capturing Languedoc and then annex Paris after winning a single battle, which is just patent nonesense.

 

[zukodark]

In EU4, morale is exhausted, and as long as you've lasted 10 days, you essentially have space aliens that beam you up, and transport you far away to some safe place well behind the forts. Why don't you tell ME, when that has ever happened in history.

It is very easy to make things sound stupid by using terrible explanations. After an important battle, both parties would have to recover, meaning the victors wouldn't be able to immediately pursue. This would allow the losers to retreat behind the forts, instead of being immediately wiped out.

This however wouldn't work in EU4. Imagine how annoying it would be if you, who won the battle, would have to be stuck while recovering. It would be far too easy to abuse this, making it so losing a battle would be a strategy in itself. Thus we require shattered retreat as an abstraction. The result is essentially the same.

In an IRL scenario, it would be hard to predict an enemy retreat and dishonorable to "catch" them on their path, in order to wipe them out at their weakest. Yes, it happened, but it was not the general rule. It would be the norm if it was possible in EU4. Instead we can catch them about as often as IRL, just on their arrival province. Same result, just a different reason.

 

[Stenen Jan]

Another thing to mention about warfare over this time period is that armies continued to increase as states acquired the means to support larger armies (and it happened the other way round too, with the need for larger armies acting as an incentive to improve tax collection). Each side at Hastings had around 10,000 men. The death of Harold and subsequent loss of this army meant there was no sizable fighting force remaining to oppose the Normans.

As armies got larger and larger, in a single battle you would be engaging a proportionately smaller army, making it less likely for a victory as decisive as Hastings when essentially the entirety of both armies were committed.

 

[TenshiN]

I just agree with the initial idea for one-side war. Like, if Ottomans attacks Albania and their army got stack wiped, as well as their fleet, and no one else is here to help, they should be able surrender without waiting for 9 months to see the fortress fall.

Now imagine people doing worldconquests by 1480 when everyone just starts to surrender instantly after a few battles. Which looks quite possible, given how easy it is to quickly blob all over the map

 

[Robert de Bruce]

The thing with WC is less that wars last too long but that you don't have the capacities to integrate all the new lands.

 

[szmik]

I just agree with the initial idea for one-side war. Like, if Ottomans attacks Albania and their army got stack wiped, as well as their fleet, and no one else is here to help, they should be able surrender without waiting for 9 months to see the fortress fall.

no, they could hope for anyone to attack Ottomans and relieve them... forts/cities surrendered only when there was no other hope and/or terms were good enough given the circumstances

 

[Totalwarplayer]

If we had more control over battles then yes, otherwise never.

 

[hahaha01357]

It is very easy to make things sound stupid by using terrible explanations. After an important battle, both parties would have to recover, meaning the victors wouldn't be able to immediately pursue. This would allow the losers to retreat behind the forts, instead of being immediately wiped out.

This however wouldn't work in EU4. Imagine how annoying it would be if you, who won the battle, would have to be stuck while recovering. It would be far too easy to abuse this, making it so losing a battle would be a strategy in itself. Thus we require shattered retreat as an abstraction. The result is essentially the same.

In an IRL scenario, it would be hard to predict an enemy retreat and dishonorable to "catch" them on their path, in order to wipe them out at their weakest. Yes, it happened, but it was not the general rule. It would be the norm if it was possible in EU4. Instead we can catch them about as often as IRL, just on their arrival province. Same result, just a different reason.

The reason IRL a retreating army is often able to outrun its pursuers is because it usually abandons most of its supplies and heavy equipment. Large battles were also often quite decisive during the EU4 timeframe such as the Battle of Poltava (1709) during the Great Northern War and the Battle of Austerlitz (1805) during the War of the Third Coalition. In the case of Austerlitz, it did actually force the Coalition members to surrender.

 

[Lord Zsinj]

I would argue Poltava was decisive in that pretty much the rock hard elite core of the Swedish army got stopped cold then cut off. Stack wipe. After that Sweden had shot their load and had not a lot to fall back on.

Sweden was low population, low tax base. A similar loss by the French or the Porte would be shrugged off. That is it’s decisive nature. Ivan got curved stomped at Narva, but had plenty more bodies to throw at people.

Beyond win/loss, we have to look at the greater context of why certain losses are decisive.

 

[hahaha01357]

I would argue Poltava was decisive in that pretty much the rock hard elite core of the Swedish army got stopped cold then cut off. Stack wipe. After that Sweden had shot their load and had not a lot to fall back on.

Sweden was low population, low tax base. A similar loss by the French or the Porte would be shrugged off. That is it’s decisive nature. Ivan got curved stomped at Narva, but had plenty more bodies to throw at people.

Beyond win/loss, we have to look at the greater context of why certain losses are decisive.

Not gonna argue with that. Still, given the decisiveness of these battles, it should feature more prominently in the war score. Perhaps given different nations' tolerance of manpower losses, something like war exhaustion could be used to simulate this?

 

[PizzaReaper]

God, I hate the CK2 map...