How much artillery ?

[Tisifoni12]

So it's around 1715 and as China (not Ming, new dynasty) I answer the call from my southern neighbour Dai Viet to resist aggression from Siam. My four armies concentrate as do three Siamese armies and I find 31 of the 81 Siamese units are artillery, that's 38%. Sorry but that's nuts !

8 would be reasonable, 12 would be particularly strong, armies built for siege; 31 is . . .

 

[blackchoas]

I'm not nearly as well played in the game as I used to be but aren't cannons just better units that late and you really want closer to a 50% ratio because your infantry is really just cannon fodder to block for the actual damage of the artillery opening up?

 

[Tisifoni12]

Okay so these are Europe, so different armies, different continent, different decade, but I suspect higher relative numbers of cannon in European armies than Asian armies.

Breitenfeld 1942, Swedes 20,000 infantry and cavalry and 70 guns, HRE 26,000 infantry and cavalry and 46 guns.
How many guns does a 1,000 strength unit represent; 6, 12, 24 ?
If 12 then for the above Swedish Army 5 or 6 gun units to 20 inf and cav (27.5%). For the HRE 4 gun units to 26 inf and cav (15%).

Blenheim 1704, Alliance 52,000 inf and cav, 66 guns (30%). France 56,000 inf and cav 90 guns.
Alliance; 5 or 6 gun units and 52 cav / inf units (10%). France; 7 or 8 gun units and 56 cav / inf units (13%).

 

[blackchoas]

those are historical numbers, not numbers based on game mechanics. That's not how things are balanced and nearly 300 years into the game things aren't super historical anyway, basically the longer things run the less historical things become, making a military system that is perfectly balanced not just mechanically but also to be historically realistic at every tech level for 400 years is crazy, so I'm not entirely sure if I agree with the general idea that these late game armies need to match historical armies. A realistic answer is perhaps that cannons were too expensive in real life where in the game every nation is way more economically stream lined and able to easily gather and spend funds than most historical states really ever were and thus many more armies can afford many more cannons.

Mechanically the AI is being smart and building its army correctly. Whether you think the numbers are wrong is kind of a moot point, its like arguing the naval system isn't perfectly realistic, yes we are aware its not 100% accurate, but just suggesting something be more historically accurate for the sake of it just ignores all the game design reasons that something might be the way it is. Blind conformity to numbers like in 1700 Frances artillery ratio was 10% so other nations should reflect this isn't game design.

 

[Nostalgium]

The flip happens around... uuuh, I think it's mil tech 16 when arty starts getting real good, but someone correct me on that if I'm wrong, I don't remember off the top of my head. After that, you basically want full combat width of arty. They're what do most of your damage in battle.

It's best not to think about how little sense it makes for 30-50% of your army being artillery. You can make all sorts of justifications for it - like arty actually being 900 infantrymen and 100 artilliers with their associated cannon, but honestly, EU4's army sizes/composition has all sorts of problems before you get to the Inf/Art ratio.

 

[Talamare]

Artillery count should be equal to your Combat Width * Number of independently operating armies.

30 out of 80 Force Width sounds perfectly correct

 

[annulen]

So it's around 1715

This means you should already have tech 24, which is combat width 38 => you need at least 38 artillery on battlefield.

 

[YellowPress]

So it's around 1715 and as China (not Ming, new dynasty) I answer the call from my southern neighbour Dai Viet to resist aggression from Siam. My four armies concentrate as do three Siamese armies and I find 31 of the 81 Siamese units are artillery, that's 38%. Sorry but that's nuts !

8 would be reasonable, 12 would be particularly strong, armies built for siege; 31 is . . .

Ai is playing well, 1k cannons isnt 1k guns irl, same way 1k cav arent 1k cavalry irl

 

[Tisifoni12]

Ai is playing well, 1k cannons isnt 1k guns irl, same way 1k cav arent 1k cavalry irl

Well obviously. One assumes '1,000 infantry' is 1,000 infantry, that '1,000 cavalry' is probably 500, that '1,000 artillery' is one or two batteries of guns; or 6 -12.

31 artillery even at 6 guns per artillery is 186 . . .

Well I've long suggested the combat / battles system could be improved. Here's another reason . . .

 

[YellowPress]

Well obviously. One assumes '1,000 infantry' is 1,000 infantry, that '1,000 cavalry' is probably 500, that '1,000 artillery' is one or two batteries of guns; or 6 -12.

31 artillery even at 6 guns per artillery is 186 . . .

Well I've long suggested the combat / battles system could be improved. Here's another reason . . .

If we move back to artillery and cav modifying army speeds too that would be appreciated, rather than just your gov reform doing it thatd be good too

 

[Tisifoni12]

The 'ďesign' of my own armies was not based on any knowledge of how to 'game the system', but a reaction to the imbalance in casualties. Some, many, infantry units can drop to 0 strength while cavalry will have had minimal casualties and artillery none.

So, four armies each of 24 inf, 4 cav and 2 of guns. Were casualty allocation a bit more balanced then I'd have gone for something like 18 : 6 : 6 or 16 : 8 : 6.

I recommend redesign of the combat / battle system. As I have been doing for some years.

 

[annulen]

Some, many, infantry units can drop to 0 strength while cavalry will have had minimal casualties and artillery none.

Cavalry can be used for flanking or for fighting face to face. The latter makes sense only if you have strong cavalry bonuses. e.g. from ideas, or if there is no other choice to cover up artillery. If cav is only flanking it will take no casualties.

Artillery should never take casualties, you should better retreat if it appears on the first line.

I recommend redesign of the combat / battle system. As I have been doing for some years.

If you don't even understand existing combat mechanic, why do you think your recommendation should have any weight?

In the late game most damage is dealt by artillery and most casualties are taken by infantry. The latter isn't called "cannon fodder" for nothing.

 

[grommile]

If we move back to artillery and cav modifying army speeds

then we can gimp the AI harder by doing yet more tedious micromanagement shenanigans.

So, four armies each of 24 inf, 4 cav and 2 of guns. Were casualty allocation a bit more balanced then I'd have gone for something like 18 : 6 : 6 or 16 : 8 : 6.

With that little artillery, I'm not surprised your infantry are getting pureed in late-game battles!

Two things you need to understand:
Artillery does vastly more damage than infantry in the late game
and
Artillery contributes half its defensive pips to the frontline regiment in front of it.

So with your frankly pitiful artillery contingent, your army takes more damage and does much less damage.

 

[YellowPress]

then we can gimp the AI harder by doing yet more tedious micromanagement shenanigans.

It would buff cav and mean ottos can take that much more damage before their full cannons join the fray

 

[Baswow]

The 'ďesign' of my own armies was not based on any knowledge of how to 'game the system', but a reaction to the imbalance in casualties. Some, many, infantry units can drop to 0 strength while cavalry will have had minimal casualties and artillery none.

So, four armies each of 24 inf, 4 cav and 2 of guns. Were casualty allocation a bit more balanced then I'd have gone for something like 18 : 6 : 6 or 16 : 8 : 6.

I recommend redesign of the combat / battle system. As I have been doing for some years.

I honestly don't get your point. 'The way I'm playing does not give good results against AI armies. Therefore, change the combat system'.
If you would look into the way combat works and how different units function, you would realize that the best way to fight battles is to use your backrow as much as you can. Whether you need a full backrow in single player is questionable, but the higher percentage of combat width you have of cannons in your army, the more damage your army will do.

 

[Skoonting]

After tech 15 (or 16?) you should have as many artillery as your combat width

 

[Tisifoni12]

Clearly the way combat works has very little to do with how units were deployed and fought in historical battles.

I am not saying change the way the game because the wY I play doesn't give good results. I'm saying it needs a re-think because it doesn't reflect the way armies were organised and used.

 

[grommile]

. I'm saying it needs a re-think because it doesn't reflect the way armies were organised and used.

Under that argument, everything in the game needs a rethink (and armies probably aren't even the worst offender).

 

[YellowPress]

Clearly the way combat works has very little to do with how units were deployed and fought in historical battles.

I am not saying change the way the game because the wY I play doesn't give good results. I'm saying it needs a re-think because it doesn't reflect the way armies were organised and used.

We just need paradox to come up with how many cannons are in 1k

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not nearly as well played in the game as I used to be but aren't cannons just better units that late and you really want closer to a 50% ratio because your infantry is really just cannon fodder to block for the actual damage of the artillery opening up?

Back row of arty is good and should be used if you can afford it. It is pretty necessary to win late game fights. However, even at the very end of the game, infantry are 3.10 fire and 2.15 shock from tech. Arty is 8.4 fire and 0.55 shock.

That's literally just for tech 32, though. At tech 31, artillery fire from tech is 6.4. Infantry will remain a significant component of your damage throughout the game, especially because it's not firing from back row like arty.

Arty does provide some damage reduction to front row, and deals damage to enemy. It's also worth noting that damaged regiments deal less damage, so getting damage out of back row arty will compound an advantage. It is very hard to win fights w/o it in later techs where AI has it. It is also more useful early game than advertised, just difficult to afford.