Fighting in HT³... Am I disappointed...?
- Thread starter unmerged(69928)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Maybe the victorious army should gain both a small bit of moral to prevent instantwhipeouts, but then it should also be locked in the province for a few (10-12) days celebrating, looting, pillaging, raping and caring for the wounded.
I strongly agree. There should be some delay for the victor.
I've put out a few ideas, none of which has gotten any attention.
How would you like to see it work?
The other issue is how quickly the looser gets both their moral and lost troops back so they can attack again or stop me from steam rolling their army.
The replacement of troops should take as long as it takes to make a new unit, in MM that is a long time. The moral should take 6+ months to return when you have lost.
The replacement of troops should take as long as it takes to make a new unit, in MM that is a long time. The moral should take 6+ months to return when you have lost.
After 2 days of playing around with the land table, I have one I like. It's a very minor mod that preserves most of the HT³ combat while allowing for a little 3.1/3.2 style of play.
It has a good flow to it, and isn't as abrupt as the original is. I found I could play my style for the most part without feeling like someone was trying to drive a stake through my heart all the time. I also found I couldn't make the mistakes I used to... You pay for brainfades alot heavier than before.
This allowed me to play two days of HT³ for 6-8 hours where 2-3 hours had been a chore before. With any luck it'll help you too.
Remember the changes are subtle. It'll take a bit to realize what you can get away with.
The list of changes and what to expect are in the MOD post.
Here's a link: Minor Land Table Mod
Anyone missing the extra maneuverability and possible miraculous, give it a shot. You may actually be surprised at a battle outcome...
T
It has a good flow to it, and isn't as abrupt as the original is. I found I could play my style for the most part without feeling like someone was trying to drive a stake through my heart all the time. I also found I couldn't make the mistakes I used to... You pay for brainfades alot heavier than before.
This allowed me to play two days of HT³ for 6-8 hours where 2-3 hours had been a chore before. With any luck it'll help you too.
Remember the changes are subtle. It'll take a bit to realize what you can get away with.
The list of changes and what to expect are in the MOD post.
Here's a link: Minor Land Table Mod
Anyone missing the extra maneuverability and possible miraculous, give it a shot. You may actually be surprised at a battle outcome...
T
Good to hear this but... How could you fix the insta-clear against small armies? Isn't that hardcoded with the no morale wipeout? Otherwise this game is more moddable than I thought.
The hard code wipe out is still there, but the numbers game is a little different. I'm not a programmer, so I couldn't tell you why, but my guess is the change makes it less of an advantage for the defensive force, not much but enough.
That makes for a better 1st battle... You don't lose all of your moral at the end of the 12 day cycle, even though you may lose the battle. That means you may not have alot, but even 1 is a case to avoid the insta wipe. After the 12 days, you can pull your men manually too, so you can decide where to retreat.
The two of them together are just enough to give a fighting chance, and it isn't fool proof. Generals and Terrain can still really ruin your day.
The biggest improvement in my mind is when you have fairly equal forces going toe to toe. Before, the defense would have a huge advantage and smaller forces could hold against gargantuan invasions... Now, it's easier with a goodly sized force advantage, but if you don't have the means to get one, with some skill you can work armies and units in and out and take a province and keep it held. It's much more a dance as opposed to just hitting their thumb with a hammer. You just have to remember the higher casualties and not over extend too far. It will cost you to take the ground, but it's doable. I'd much rather fight my way through than sit around and wait for the other 20K I know I'll need for the army to take it the other way. It's going to cost you the same, it's going to take the same amount of time, and in the end you'll likely lose the same amount of men... But now I get to play the game instead of sitting and watching units get built...
I was playing a game this morning testing the new Advisor Mod and had some really good 'draws', if you can call losing half an army a draw. Equal size/strength/generals were doing fairly equal damage, with terrain and tactics and extra men in or out being key to winning, losing or just plain getting out. I had no fear of getting routed and wiped without at least a shot at getting away or pressing the attack. I also found battles are just as deadly next time around if you push too far or don't get out fast enough. I found the AI working feints and backdoor moves quite well. Many times I found myself having to scramble to cover ground admiring the sneakiness of the adversary.
Just to give you an idea of a typical battle sequence now...: I was just playing as Castille, and had annexed the Papal State. I had a revolt pop in Abruzzi, a 1/12/1 with minor general. My general was barely better. I sent a 2/8/2 with the general from one side, and a support 4/4/0 that arrived 3 days in from the other... When all was said and done, my initial force was down to 1300 men, and the 4/4/0 was at 2900/3000/0, while the rebels survived, with a 123/3800/500 or so force. I was able to follow up and remove the offending rebels with the johnny come latelys while my original force had to go hide in Sienna for awhile...
Had I attacked that -4 terrain with a nearly equal general in original form, both my armies would be toast, and within the twelve days. Now, both sides have survivors. Because I have a rather largely superior force, and because I used a split approach and staggered attack, I was able to overcome the terrain, albeit at great cost, and move into the next province and finish off the Rebs. I find that a much better battle as a whole, with a decently realistic price and outcome. It's not something I want to have to do everyday, but if I have to, I know I don't have to have a ridiculously huge army to go and move the Rebel mountain.
However, had I not had the extra forces, I would have lost. Should have lost. In fact I never would have advanced. I would have had to wait for another army to be built or ferried. Had I tried to take that province with the single army, I would have lost my army, as I should have for not using decent tactics, or anything resembling intelligence... The insta wipe is still very active, and it loves to reward stupidity with insta-clears.
I watched Austria take a province from France doing something similar to my actions against the rebs, displacing a 16K INF unit with a 4/12/0 and a minor INF force brought in later for the boost. They then snuck 2K into the retreating province on the French, and followed them with their main army. France was still 10K strong, but the timing was perfect. The 2K kept the defensive modifier as the main army hit within a day of the battle starting.
France was again displaced. Both sides had to stop there and wait a bit to heal up, but France got impatient and charged in, against a -4 terrain. Without backup, she dwindled to 437 men and retreated back. Austria could not pursue and let her go... (!?! I know !?!) If France had hobbled that force home it would have survived the day. As it is, the Austrians were so hurt France actually attacked again. (!?! I know !?!) Do I have to mention they were wiped out...?
I don't think most HT³ players that like the new system will be bothered with the outcomes, but for those of us that didn't, it was a refreshing change, and made warring fun again...
Hope that helps to clarify it a bit.
T
That makes for a better 1st battle... You don't lose all of your moral at the end of the 12 day cycle, even though you may lose the battle. That means you may not have alot, but even 1 is a case to avoid the insta wipe. After the 12 days, you can pull your men manually too, so you can decide where to retreat.
The two of them together are just enough to give a fighting chance, and it isn't fool proof. Generals and Terrain can still really ruin your day.
The biggest improvement in my mind is when you have fairly equal forces going toe to toe. Before, the defense would have a huge advantage and smaller forces could hold against gargantuan invasions... Now, it's easier with a goodly sized force advantage, but if you don't have the means to get one, with some skill you can work armies and units in and out and take a province and keep it held. It's much more a dance as opposed to just hitting their thumb with a hammer. You just have to remember the higher casualties and not over extend too far. It will cost you to take the ground, but it's doable. I'd much rather fight my way through than sit around and wait for the other 20K I know I'll need for the army to take it the other way. It's going to cost you the same, it's going to take the same amount of time, and in the end you'll likely lose the same amount of men... But now I get to play the game instead of sitting and watching units get built...
I was playing a game this morning testing the new Advisor Mod and had some really good 'draws', if you can call losing half an army a draw. Equal size/strength/generals were doing fairly equal damage, with terrain and tactics and extra men in or out being key to winning, losing or just plain getting out. I had no fear of getting routed and wiped without at least a shot at getting away or pressing the attack. I also found battles are just as deadly next time around if you push too far or don't get out fast enough. I found the AI working feints and backdoor moves quite well. Many times I found myself having to scramble to cover ground admiring the sneakiness of the adversary.
Just to give you an idea of a typical battle sequence now...: I was just playing as Castille, and had annexed the Papal State. I had a revolt pop in Abruzzi, a 1/12/1 with minor general. My general was barely better. I sent a 2/8/2 with the general from one side, and a support 4/4/0 that arrived 3 days in from the other... When all was said and done, my initial force was down to 1300 men, and the 4/4/0 was at 2900/3000/0, while the rebels survived, with a 123/3800/500 or so force. I was able to follow up and remove the offending rebels with the johnny come latelys while my original force had to go hide in Sienna for awhile...
Had I attacked that -4 terrain with a nearly equal general in original form, both my armies would be toast, and within the twelve days. Now, both sides have survivors. Because I have a rather largely superior force, and because I used a split approach and staggered attack, I was able to overcome the terrain, albeit at great cost, and move into the next province and finish off the Rebs. I find that a much better battle as a whole, with a decently realistic price and outcome. It's not something I want to have to do everyday, but if I have to, I know I don't have to have a ridiculously huge army to go and move the Rebel mountain.
However, had I not had the extra forces, I would have lost. Should have lost. In fact I never would have advanced. I would have had to wait for another army to be built or ferried. Had I tried to take that province with the single army, I would have lost my army, as I should have for not using decent tactics, or anything resembling intelligence... The insta wipe is still very active, and it loves to reward stupidity with insta-clears.
I watched Austria take a province from France doing something similar to my actions against the rebs, displacing a 16K INF unit with a 4/12/0 and a minor INF force brought in later for the boost. They then snuck 2K into the retreating province on the French, and followed them with their main army. France was still 10K strong, but the timing was perfect. The 2K kept the defensive modifier as the main army hit within a day of the battle starting.
France was again displaced. Both sides had to stop there and wait a bit to heal up, but France got impatient and charged in, against a -4 terrain. Without backup, she dwindled to 437 men and retreated back. Austria could not pursue and let her go... (!?! I know !?!) If France had hobbled that force home it would have survived the day. As it is, the Austrians were so hurt France actually attacked again. (!?! I know !?!) Do I have to mention they were wiped out...?
I don't think most HT³ players that like the new system will be bothered with the outcomes, but for those of us that didn't, it was a refreshing change, and made warring fun again...
Hope that helps to clarify it a bit.
T
The idea of victorious armies being delayed in place for longer seems like a good idea just in terms of historicity, though I'm not sure I would like it if it were "locked" in.
My understanding is that armies of the era could often be rather unruly. It would be nice if there were something like a warfare slider or "military doctrine" slider or something ranging from "Rape & Pillage-----Severe Discipline Against Pillagers." The benefits of the Pillaging side, more loot, worsened long-term relations with the enemy province, more harm to target province economy, pursuit if victorious substantially slowed, losses if defeated more severe (think "take no prisoners of these invading raping/pillaging scum!"), possible others . . . Benefits of Severe Discipline end: better chance to pursue retreaters, but reduced harm to enemy province, and stepwise increasing costs (something like 0.02 per month or so) to military maintenance.
The idea that the terrain modifier is not right because most battles would be fought near roads, and such like: this is a reasonable line of argument. I do think that a resident force that has not been in place for some weeks or months should receive a lower "defender" or terrain bonus. What would be nice is a "Tactical Disposition" (TD) slider ranging from Defensive to Offensive or some such. With a unit set to extreme Defensive, they should achieve optimum defensive preparation quicker, but be much less likely to pursue and cause lower casualties.
One last thing that would nice: if entering a province with enemy forces did not automatically result in a battle.
If the resident of a province has their TD set to full defend, and so does an "attacker" who moves into the province, it should be possible for two resident forces to be coresident in a province. This could create all kinds of interesting force buildup kinds of dynamics. I may not be correct, but it is my understanding that this type of coresidence of a "province" (in game terms) was rather common in the Hundred Years War. Having an "attacker" force coresiding in an enemy occupied and defended province might incur a somewhat higher maintenance cost and (potentially) cause a slow reduction of morale, however, there could also be benefits to it. The problem here is the AI probably could not handle such changes to the engine, and it probably would not be doable with the code?
My understanding is that armies of the era could often be rather unruly. It would be nice if there were something like a warfare slider or "military doctrine" slider or something ranging from "Rape & Pillage-----Severe Discipline Against Pillagers." The benefits of the Pillaging side, more loot, worsened long-term relations with the enemy province, more harm to target province economy, pursuit if victorious substantially slowed, losses if defeated more severe (think "take no prisoners of these invading raping/pillaging scum!"), possible others . . . Benefits of Severe Discipline end: better chance to pursue retreaters, but reduced harm to enemy province, and stepwise increasing costs (something like 0.02 per month or so) to military maintenance.
The idea that the terrain modifier is not right because most battles would be fought near roads, and such like: this is a reasonable line of argument. I do think that a resident force that has not been in place for some weeks or months should receive a lower "defender" or terrain bonus. What would be nice is a "Tactical Disposition" (TD) slider ranging from Defensive to Offensive or some such. With a unit set to extreme Defensive, they should achieve optimum defensive preparation quicker, but be much less likely to pursue and cause lower casualties.
One last thing that would nice: if entering a province with enemy forces did not automatically result in a battle.
If the resident of a province has their TD set to full defend, and so does an "attacker" who moves into the province, it should be possible for two resident forces to be coresident in a province. This could create all kinds of interesting force buildup kinds of dynamics. I may not be correct, but it is my understanding that this type of coresidence of a "province" (in game terms) was rather common in the Hundred Years War. Having an "attacker" force coresiding in an enemy occupied and defended province might incur a somewhat higher maintenance cost and (potentially) cause a slow reduction of morale, however, there could also be benefits to it. The problem here is the AI probably could not handle such changes to the engine, and it probably would not be doable with the code?
Hey, that sound good:
You cannot move 10 days from province after battle, if you were victorious.
You will get defensive bonus after 10 days, consisting of slight classical defensive bonus (+1 for river, +1-3 for hilly-mountain)+enthrenchment defensive bonus(maybe dependent on defensive slider)
Defensive-aggresive slider would modify totally +-5 days for both movement (from 5 days of fully agresive to 15 days of fully defesive) and defensive bonus (5 for fully defensive to 15 fully agresive)
You cannot move 10 days from province after battle, if you were victorious.
You will get defensive bonus after 10 days, consisting of slight classical defensive bonus (+1 for river, +1-3 for hilly-mountain)+enthrenchment defensive bonus(maybe dependent on defensive slider)
Defensive-aggresive slider would modify totally +-5 days for both movement (from 5 days of fully agresive to 15 days of fully defesive) and defensive bonus (5 for fully defensive to 15 fully agresive)
Personally, I'd like to see delay universal, for every order change. What I envisage is 1d10 (0-9 days), modified by leader's Maneuver (multiply by 1-M/10), & rounded off. For post battle, I'd add another die roll.
Something like that. One could work current morale in, too.
I keep thinking of the difficulty of really coordinating forces, & how it just absent from the game.
The idea of 2 opposing forces in one province, without combat, was possible for fleets in EUII. And the result was not encouraging. The failure to contact was fine, but if you tried to reorganize, you're fleet was automatically engaged, with 0 morale on your part. This happened to the AI, too, so I once beat a 437 (!) ship ENG fleet with about 25 ships in my fleet. Of course, the auto-elim rule wasn't there, so only about 30 sank, but still...
Along those lines, I'd like to see a no-battles, ever, rule in full-sea zones, but doubt we'll ever see it. (It was so rare above the level of 1 or 2 / side, that I don't think it belongs in a strategic game like this.)
Something like that. One could work current morale in, too.
I keep thinking of the difficulty of really coordinating forces, & how it just absent from the game.
The idea of 2 opposing forces in one province, without combat, was possible for fleets in EUII. And the result was not encouraging. The failure to contact was fine, but if you tried to reorganize, you're fleet was automatically engaged, with 0 morale on your part. This happened to the AI, too, so I once beat a 437 (!) ship ENG fleet with about 25 ships in my fleet. Of course, the auto-elim rule wasn't there, so only about 30 sank, but still...
Along those lines, I'd like to see a no-battles, ever, rule in full-sea zones, but doubt we'll ever see it. (It was so rare above the level of 1 or 2 / side, that I don't think it belongs in a strategic game like this.)
This is a rather interesting idea...
All that would need be done is to add an 'after battle' phase to the combat. Random would be good, from 1 to 3 days would be sufficient, with a modifier from a slider set by the player that addresses 'honor'.
The slider would go from full honor, where you bury your dead, your troops behave and you don't slaughter everyone in sight to full outright bastards that leave 'em where they lie, pillage the town and run after and kill everything in sight.
Discipline and moral would be higher in an honorable army, as would rewards for Tradition and Prestige. Maintenance would be higher too. You'd get less from looting, and lower attrition. Your Manpower would be lower, as you'd require certain types of men to be soldiers. Lower RR when they take a province, as people are less likely to be afraid of them. And you don't kill to the last man, you're a gentleman, and you let them go.
Expedience would be an advantage of a dishonorable army, as well as being able to wipe out an entire force (insta-kill as opposed to leaving 10% to go their own way for instance) Attrition would be a little higher, as men would stay and 'pillage' instead of join the ranks, and maintenance would be lower, like by half. You'd also get a boost to Manpower, as nearly anyone could serve and a boost to Force Limits because the armies are cheaper to maintain. That would be it's biggest advantage. It's cheaper to have an army that gets to get paid everytime it takes a province. The looted modifier should be higher for this army than for an honorable one, where the looting would be minimal. Alot of RR in a province too with this lot running amok.
It should be better to be an 'honorable' army than a 'dishonorable' one, but harder to have it that way and to hold on to it. Alot more money and effort for an army of similar size, like 25% more or so. That would give a full bastard army -25% to maintenance and a full honorable army a +25%.
Honorable would make busy, bury their dead and move on. Dishonorable would be pillaging, sitting drunk around the fire and singing songs of wenches and scurvy.
The more honorable, the longer you take.
The more dishonorable, the longer you take.
The more centered, the quicker you move on to pursuit.
T
All that would need be done is to add an 'after battle' phase to the combat. Random would be good, from 1 to 3 days would be sufficient, with a modifier from a slider set by the player that addresses 'honor'.
The slider would go from full honor, where you bury your dead, your troops behave and you don't slaughter everyone in sight to full outright bastards that leave 'em where they lie, pillage the town and run after and kill everything in sight.
Discipline and moral would be higher in an honorable army, as would rewards for Tradition and Prestige. Maintenance would be higher too. You'd get less from looting, and lower attrition. Your Manpower would be lower, as you'd require certain types of men to be soldiers. Lower RR when they take a province, as people are less likely to be afraid of them. And you don't kill to the last man, you're a gentleman, and you let them go.
Expedience would be an advantage of a dishonorable army, as well as being able to wipe out an entire force (insta-kill as opposed to leaving 10% to go their own way for instance) Attrition would be a little higher, as men would stay and 'pillage' instead of join the ranks, and maintenance would be lower, like by half. You'd also get a boost to Manpower, as nearly anyone could serve and a boost to Force Limits because the armies are cheaper to maintain. That would be it's biggest advantage. It's cheaper to have an army that gets to get paid everytime it takes a province. The looted modifier should be higher for this army than for an honorable one, where the looting would be minimal. Alot of RR in a province too with this lot running amok.
It should be better to be an 'honorable' army than a 'dishonorable' one, but harder to have it that way and to hold on to it. Alot more money and effort for an army of similar size, like 25% more or so. That would give a full bastard army -25% to maintenance and a full honorable army a +25%.
Honorable would make busy, bury their dead and move on. Dishonorable would be pillaging, sitting drunk around the fire and singing songs of wenches and scurvy.
The more honorable, the longer you take.
The more dishonorable, the longer you take.
The more centered, the quicker you move on to pursuit.
T
My biggest problem with the fighting is that the ais troops seem to not take losses for over stacking. i had a fight in america with a stack of 14000 troops from castille in a colony. there army took no loses for tomany troops in an area. so how am i to fight them for i lose troop for over stacking. or the ottoman force of 24000 cav, and 32000 inf. like there is anywhere on the map that 56 is the supply limit.
The ai should have at least some limits to the max troops allowed in 1 sector. They should be able to limit the ai from super stacking.
The ai should have at least some limits to the max troops allowed in 1 sector. They should be able to limit the ai from super stacking.
I've reached the point where I'm seriously considering going back to 3.2. I'm indifferent to dynasties & the HRE, & some of the other elements could be modded in, IMO.
I have gone back to IN 3.2, & from a combat point of view, it's an improvement. Frankly, the final version had pretty much fixed the land combat problems; ping pong was at a plausible rate. (There should be some, you know). And whatever one disliked, could be modded in the tables & units.
Naval was not so good, as was inevitable, given the insistence on using the same combat system for both land & sea. But it was still MUCH better than HT. As in IN 3.0, captures have been abolished. I thing in the earlier case they actually were made impossible; now, I think, it's just that they almost never happen. But here, too, some modding could help.
It's hard to see just how to mod HT combat. antracer's table helped some, but it was a 10 foot jump over a 20 foot ditch, alas.
I just hope they swing, for the official 4.1, back to something much closer to 3.2. And I'd really like to be able to capture artillery. (In fact, IMO, arty should be more like ships, subject to capture, but not to upgrading. And of course, siege values should differ.)
Naval was not so good, as was inevitable, given the insistence on using the same combat system for both land & sea. But it was still MUCH better than HT. As in IN 3.0, captures have been abolished. I thing in the earlier case they actually were made impossible; now, I think, it's just that they almost never happen. But here, too, some modding could help.
It's hard to see just how to mod HT combat. antracer's table helped some, but it was a 10 foot jump over a 20 foot ditch, alas.
I just hope they swing, for the official 4.1, back to something much closer to 3.2. And I'd really like to be able to capture artillery. (In fact, IMO, arty should be more like ships, subject to capture, but not to upgrading. And of course, siege values should differ.)
pre HTTT was definetely better pound for pound, mostly becuz combat was so much fun. but i halved the terrain bonuses and now the game is much better.
i hope PI follows in antracer's footsteps and makes the combat what it was before
EDIT: and make the naval battles last a bit longer. sometimes a battle will happen so fast im not even aware of it. i think morale has a lot to do with it, both in land and naval. sometimes they'll fight at 0 morale, sometimes your morale goes up, down. it's all so very strange and it's hard to predict how a battle will turn out.
on a completely different topic they should make the fabricate claims spy mission work for non-monarchies. why is being a monarchy a prerequisite to get a CB on someone anyway? those of us who dont like to play as monarchies shouldnt be penalized
i hope PI follows in antracer's footsteps and makes the combat what it was before
EDIT: and make the naval battles last a bit longer. sometimes a battle will happen so fast im not even aware of it. i think morale has a lot to do with it, both in land and naval. sometimes they'll fight at 0 morale, sometimes your morale goes up, down. it's all so very strange and it's hard to predict how a battle will turn out.
on a completely different topic they should make the fabricate claims spy mission work for non-monarchies. why is being a monarchy a prerequisite to get a CB on someone anyway? those of us who dont like to play as monarchies shouldnt be penalized
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
To say that 1000 men scattered or massacred an army 20 times its size
would
be
inaccuraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate
The EU3 combat system is just not built to model such a specific set of circumstances as Thermopylae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Szigetvár
After the battle, its importance was considered such that Cardinal Richelieu was reported to have called it "the battle that saved civilization."
After the battle, its importance was considered such that Cardinal Richelieu was reported to have called it "the battle that saved civilization."
It was also a unique case....
A specialized and trained group fighting a specific battle on specific terrain for a specific purpose and with a specific objective. Far too much for this game to handle, but only because it's not designed to work that way.
T
edit: JKNUZB: :rofl:
A specialized and trained group fighting a specific battle on specific terrain for a specific purpose and with a specific objective. Far too much for this game to handle, but only because it's not designed to work that way.
T
edit: JKNUZB: :rofl:
Definitely unusual, but I don't know if you could safely say "unique"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke's_Drift