House rules for sensible battles...

[wryun]

I was just reading the Brandenburg thread, where a veteran was busily suggesting the 'standard' EU2 army tactics (you know - if facing superior enemy, run around, avoid armies, siege as many enemy provinces as possible, destroy small detachments with cavalry...).

Of course, these tactics tend to look a bit gamey: unrealistic, and taking advantage of the poor dumb AI. Does anyone try to play with a house-rule that they have to play 'sensible' - i.e. always try to engage the main AI army (defensively or offensively) with their main army? If fail, regroup and try again? It might - shock horror - even end in lost wars where provinces are transferred in the other direction.

One might propose some refinements... such as being allowed to avoid battle, but only being allowed to retake own provinces rather than attack enemy provinces (so one can't build up a positive war score and do the quite silly). Anyone?

PS Ok, I use the gamey tactics at the moment.

 

[Calad]

That would be intresting. But AI has manpower cheat, so you just destroy your change to win facing endless hordes all the time.
Play MP-games if you want really challenge.

 

[unmerged(16181)]

I was just reading the Brandenburg thread, where a veteran was busily suggesting the 'standard' EU2 army tactics (you know - if facing superior enemy, run around, avoid armies, siege as many enemy provinces as possible, destroy small detachments with cavalry...).

It sounds pretty realistic to me, actually. It's an indirect kind of war, one where you try to harass your enemies as much as possible rather than just launching a frontal assault. But countries have had wars like that before.

 

[Dell19]

That would be intresting. But AI has manpower cheat, so you just destroy your change to win facing endless hordes all the time.

Thats what I thought when I read the opening post. Nice idea but at the same time you would need to make the AI have sensible armies.

 

[unmerged(4344)]

If you play with the AI set to lower levels, then I think it gets less free gold for being at war.

If the AI didn't get all that gold, then it would be even easier to take on AIs, because you'd just have to wait around with your large cavalry army until you could nail the AI's armies in plains. And lacking the endless building, you could then easily cover the AI country and siege at your leisure.

 

[jonti-h]

I tend to attack the AI head on - but usually on my terms (i.e. when I want to) I don't bother with the siege only war 'cos I don't like it.

I lose a few battles (especially in the early years) but hardly ever lose the war.

 

[wryun]

It sounds pretty realistic to me, actually. It's an indirect kind of war, one where you try to harass your enemies as much as possible rather than just launching a frontal assault. But countries have had wars like that before.

Did it really happen that much in EU2's period? My impression (haven't done anything much on the history of the period) is that these kind of tactics would only be resorted to on home ground, usually after an initial decisive battle had failed. At least it shouldn't be happening when one takes the enemy's capital with 5000 men when they have 80,000 on the rampage in your own provinces...

If you play with the AI set to lower levels, then I think it gets less free gold for being at war.

If the AI didn't get all that gold, then it would be even easier to take on AIs, because you'd just have to wait around with your large cavalry army until you could nail the AI's armies in plains. And lacking the endless building, you could then easily cover the AI country and siege at your leisure.

Yeah, well, you may want to play on normal... or restrict the equally gamey tactic of all cav. armies (or at least all cav armies over say 5000 men).

That would be intresting. But AI has manpower cheat, so you just destroy your change to win facing endless hordes all the time.

But surely if you _win_ a decisive battle, then have the troops to follow it up (sieging enemy territory etc.), you could quite easily win a war against the cheating AI. Of course, if you lose that battle, it may be important to sue for peace at the first chance

 

[unmerged(62118)]

Did it really happen that much in EU2's period? My impression (haven't done anything much on the history of the period) is that these kind of tactics would only be resorted to on home ground, usually after an initial decisive battle had failed. At least it shouldn't be happening when one takes the enemy's capital with 5000 men when they have 80,000 on the rampage in your own provinces...



Yeah, well, you may want to play on normal... or restrict the equally gamey tactic of all cav. armies (or at least all cav armies over say 5000 men).



But surely if you _win_ a decisive battle, then have the troops to follow it up (sieging enemy territory etc.), you could quite easily win a war against the cheating AI. Of course, if you lose that battle, it may be important to sue for peace at the first chance

Yes, in this period, at least in the first part. Nations mostly went after eachothers armies at first. A perfect example would be Spain and France were CONSTANTLY at war from around 1500-1650 (generally) and almost NEVER sieged eachothers provinces. They just beat up on eachothers armies and advanced to the capitol without stopping to siege other provinces/towns.

 

[Calad]

But surely if you _win_ a decisive battle, then have the troops to follow it up (sieging enemy territory etc.), you could quite easily win a war against the cheating AI. Of course, if you lose that battle, it may be important to sue for peace at the first chance

So only one battle? Are you DOWing Bremen or Cypros?

But yeah, I got the point. Instead of running behind the frontline you want first fake your enemy and then conquer. Well it help a lot pausing the game and thinking what would you do if you were AI. So no unsure assault and sieges, sending your army to middle of enemy, marching on coastprovince with oversmall army (20-30k, I would right away send my fleet to port with huge army) and most common and stupidest mistake: never do assault on the coast. I allways wondering why players do assaults to coastalforttress when they sure know that I will send my fleet to the port with huge army and driving away him halfmorale army.

And yes, those tricks work pretty good at MP-games.