Fort assault bug

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm a little surprised this has never been officially reported. I went to report it, but apparently we need to submit a save. I'm tempted to just give the 1444 save, lol. But I will probably do the 2 minutes of legwork to set it up instead once I'm able to.

I know I'm not the only one that's noticed this, because Lambda did a video on assaulting forts. But basically, if you just get a breach and hit "assault" you will take massively more casualties than you should. It's actually possible to take more casualties per combat tick than soldiers allegedly allowed to participate.

Either there's an X limit or there isn't. We shouldn't be getting massively different disparities depending on whether we do swap/merge micro to keep right around maximum soldiers assaulting. The game should actually just use X soldiers, and replenish from available regiments to top that off as needed per tick.

The lack of discussion on this suggests to me this isn't common knowledge? That's actually kind of crazy. I can't be the only one who noticed how stupid casualties are on fort assaults .

 

[grotaclas]

@Jarvin reported this in March.

I think this is common knowledge among expert players, but not everybody realizes that it can actually be efficient to assault a fort with a full garrison if the right micromanagement is done. And not everybody who knows that is willing to do the micromanagement.

 

[Jarvin]

That's actually kind of crazy. I can't be the only one who noticed how stupid casualties are on fort assaults .

The stupidity goes both ways here, I've seen one case in MP where a guy tried to assault a fort with a stack of 2.5mln troops, and lost an entire million in the process, but if you play assaults well you can get stupidly low casualties, they can be borderline overpowered in good hands(though probably not as useful in most SP scenarios)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@Jarvin reported this in March.

I think this is common knowledge among expert players, but not everybody realizes that it can actually be efficient to assault a fort with a full garrison if the right micromanagement is done. And not everybody who knows that is willing to do the micromanagement.

Oh, thanks. I didn't realize because I title searched "assault", and apparently that won't return a thread with "assaulting" in the title X_X.

And not everybody who knows that is willing to do the micromanagement.

Lambda showed it pretty nicely in his video IMO, but yeah it's not fun to do.

(though probably not as useful in most SP scenarios)

By definition "less useful", because it is much easier to win wars in SP. Still very useful, however. You can only speed up coring so much, and the faster you win wars the better. Especially in the lands of arbitrary monsoon attrition, well-micromanaged assault starts to look attractive in manpower in many cases too (if you need to avoid AI stacks attacking your sieging force, you can't leave the minimum, but this isn't a problem if you blow up the fort before it's even close and/or simply let it siege you first and win a trivial "base race").

And yeah, losing 400k+ is absurd and showcases that this is objectively bugged. More people should not die in an assault than participate in the assault.

 

[Junuxx]

All I know is I used to assault a lot back when we were swimming in manpower anyway, but almost completely stopped doing it when it appeared to become much more costly at some point. Probably years ago.

 

[Restless Native]

So what’s this exactly, the more you have when you assault the more casualties? What’s the meta exactly? Only assault with a reasonable amount? I think I read somewhere if there’s a breech you want roughly infantry 11 times the garrison size.
Maybe fort assaults should be limited by combat width. Everyone else stays in reserves?

 

[Jarvin]

there’s a breech you want roughly infantry 11 times the garrison size.

5
Or more specifically, 5+ potential reinforcements if you really want to tryhard it; you start the assault and you keep consolidating troops every single tick

 

[Restless Native]

5
Or more specifically, 5+ potential reinforcements if you really want to tryhard it; you start the assault and you keep consolidating troops every single tick

Ok so 5 times the garrison size plus some reinforcements?

 

[grotaclas]

Ok so 5 times the garrison size plus some reinforcements?

No, no reinforcement because they also take casualties. The micromanagement would be to have a reinforcement army which is moving out of the province so that it doesn't participate in the assault. Then you can consolidate and swap troops with the reinforcement army every single day to keep the ideal number of troops on the assault at all times. @lambda x.x video explains some of the details:

 

[Restless Native]

No, no reinforcement because they also take casualties. The micromanagement would be to have a reinforcement army which is moving out of the province so that it doesn't participate in the assault. Then you can consolidate and swap troops with the reinforcement army every single day to keep the ideal number of troops on the assault at all times. @lambda x.x video explains some of the details:

Ok excellent to know. Thanks.

 

[KRBLACK]

Having watched this, I have 2 questions:

1. Which modifiers actually affect assault combat?
Does it use siege pips as it would use fire and shock pips in regular field battles?

2. Could you not just add 1k troops when the assault stack has taken 1k casualties? Or is the consolidating required? This would be less optimal, since you will fight for a while longer before reinforcing. But it also saves on the micro time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Problem being that all the micromanagement in his video is actually being done just to avoid the bug (units dying from combat in which they do not participate).

The gist of what he's doing is that he's keeping the maximum possible troops assaulting, while preventing troops that aren't assaulting from dying to nothing by using move orders.

It's literally a bug workaround, and annoying to execute. There is no good reason that an attack constrained to 10,000 soldiers is also not constrained to 10,000 soldiers. This nonsense is the equivalent of having reserve troops (not in 40w front line or 40w cannon line) in land combat take damage while not dealing any.

1. Which modifiers actually affect assault combat?

Allegedly, tech modifiers, morale, siege ability, siege pips, but not discipline. Not sure about combat ability or general pips other than siege. Defender gets heavily weighted dice.

I have not tested this myself, so I can not say with confidence whether all of these matter, and to what extent. The poster who said which things matter did so by looking at the game files, but as we all know with Pdox stuff that may or may not translate into mattering in the game...and it may or may not be intended that it does/does not.

I haven't seen any documented empirical tests.

2. Could you not just add 1k troops when the assault stack has taken 1k casualties? Or is the consolidating required? This would be less optimal, since you will fight for a while longer before reinforcing. But it also saves on the micro time.

It seems it is only actually using the 10 regiments (assuming a level 2 fort), and that consolidating into those is the way to go.

 

[KRBLACK]

Problem being that all the micromanagement in his video is actually being done just to avoid the bug (units dying from combat in which they do not participate).

The gist of what he's doing is that he's keeping the maximum possible troops assaulting, while preventing troops that aren't assaulting from dying to nothing by using move orders.

It's literally a bug workaround, and annoying to execute. There is no good reason that an attack constrained to 10,000 soldiers is also not constrained to 10,000 soldiers. This nonsense is the equivalent of having reserve troops (not in 40w front line or 40w cannon line) in land combat take damage while not dealing any.


Allegedly, tech modifiers, morale, siege ability, siege pips, but not discipline. Not sure about combat ability or general pips other than siege. Defender gets heavily weighted dice.

I have not tested this myself, so I can not say with confidence whether all of these matter, and to what extent. The poster who said which things matter did so by looking at the game files, but as we all know with Pdox stuff that may or may not translate into mattering in the game...and it may or may not be intended that it does/does not.

I haven't seen any documented empirical tests.



It seems it is only actually using the 10 regiments (assuming a level 2 fort), and that consolidating into those is the way to go.

You are a quick lad aren't you?

I am curious as to how the combat works. If I understand correctly, flanking range is not a factor in assaults. That would suggest 10k troops would perform equivalent no matter how they are distributed.
So 20 x 500 men would be just as effective as 10 x 1000 men.
Thus you could wait until your assault stack has taken 1k casualties and then move 1 fresh regiment in.

Regarding the modifiers, I find it odd that combat functions ''similar to field battles'' and is not affected by discipline.
I can imagine the siege pips of a general being used in place of fire and shock, but I believe the video stated shock stats matter whereas fire stats do not.

 

[kgmi]

No, no reinforcement because they also take casualties. The micromanagement would be to have a reinforcement army which is moving out of the province so that it doesn't participate in the assault. Then you can consolidate and swap troops with the reinforcement army every single day to keep the ideal number of troops on the assault at all times. @lambda x.x video explains some of the details:

This isnt tedious, this is straight up degenerate. I rather play WH 2 sieges with only tier 1 infantry than deal with EU4 siege mechanics.
It s either boring do nothing and wait for ticks because battles can take literal years but still dont matter in Warscore, or do THIS.

PDX really wants us to deal with their garbage fort sieging, its literally anti gameplay, I cant remember a single campaign i havent stacked every single siege ability and siege pip modifier in the game.

You know it would be enough if breached walls actually take a few ticks to repair, even TW does this since ever, but no, misclick and move your siege stack by accident while paused, enjoy re-sieging. Everything about fort mechanics make me miserable, I m just not enjoying warfare in this game anymore, if it isnt a superiority CB i rather not bother and stay at peace.

All my backup backups in Ironman games are caused by siege RNG, it shouldnt be like this.

 

[KRBLACK]

This isnt tedious, this is straight up degenerate. I rather play WH 2 sieges with only tier 1 infantry than deal with EU4 siege mechanics.
It s either boring do nothing and wait for ticks because battles can take literal years but still dont matter in Warscore, or do THIS.

PDX really wants us to deal with their garbage fort sieging, its literally anti gameplay, I cant remember a single campaign i havent stacked every single siege ability and siege pip modifier in the game.

You know it would be enough if breached walls actually take a few ticks to repair, even TW does this since ever, but no, misclick and move your siege stack by accident while paused, enjoy re-sieging. Everything about fort mechanics make me miserable, I m just not enjoying warfare in this game anymore, if it isnt a superiority CB i rather not bother and stay at peace.

All my backup backups in Ironman games are caused by siege RNG, it shouldnt be like this.

Siege ability is your best friend.
I can watch 3 day siege phases all day.

 

[Restless Native]

You are a quick lad aren't you?

I am curious as to how the combat works. If I understand correctly, flanking range is not a factor in assaults. That would suggest 10k troops would perform equivalent no matter how they are distributed.
So 20 x 500 men would be just as effective as 10 x 1000 men.
Thus you could wait until your assault stack has taken 1k casualties and then move 1 fresh regiment in.

Regarding the modifiers, I find it odd that combat functions ''similar to field battles'' and is not affected by discipline.
I can imagine the siege pips of a general being used in place of fire and shock, but I believe the video stated shock stats matter whereas fire stats do not.

That’s a good question. What’s the point of consolidating if it’s nothing to do with combat width? I’m not sure I’m understand this mechanic at all.
Also, when assaulting units only infantry right? Cannons and cavalry do nothing?

 

[Restless Native]

It seems it is only actually using the 10 regiments (assuming a level 2 fort), and that consolidating into those is the way to go.

But isn’t the issue that it’s only using 10 regiments but all the regiments are taking damage? I’m not sure at all.

 

[Howl]

The lack of discussion on this suggests to me this isn't common knowledge? That's actually kind of crazy. I can't be the only one who noticed how stupid casualties are on fort assaults .

At least in my case I find that assaults are not necessary for a casual world conquest. I tried them a few times and found them highly annoying when it became apparent that consolidating every single day seemed to be the way to go. So I just stopped using them altogether unless the fort has slightly more than 100 occupants.
So I guess there is no discussion, because most players just do not use this feature.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So 20 x 500 men would be just as effective as 10 x 1000 men.

If and only if all 20 participate and hit something, which doesn't seem to be the case.

It can't work exactly like normal combat though, else 2 enemy regiments (from 2k garrison) wouldn't be able to hit more than 2 attackers at a time, and that's clearly not what's going on either.

But isn’t the issue that it’s only using 10 regiments but all the regiments are taking damage? I’m not sure at all.

The issue is certainly that more units take damage than should. If this worked properly it would probably behave like lambda's consolidation video, but w/o all that micromanagement.

So I guess there is no discussion, because most players just do not use this feature.

I'm aware you can WC without it. But I suspect the reason it doesn't see use is because it's bugged to inflict insanely more casualties and fail more often than it should w/o the degenerate controls above.

 

[Jarvin]

I'm aware you can WC without it. But I suspect the reason it doesn't see use is because it's bugged to inflict insanely more casualties and fail more often than it should w/o the degenerate controls above.

you can still take a lvl 2 fort with less than 10k casualties, 5-6k or less if you get lucky