I am VERY confused

[Atlanton]

Okay.

I am fairly familiar with the way that the EU combat system works, having extensively played EU3. So, I assumed that Rome had a very similar combat system, but I guess I was wrong.

I am finding on a consistent basis that a 26 unit stack of 20,000 infantry with 15,000 principes and 5000 archers will lose to a heavily depleted 25 unit Greek army with only 5000 militia and 4000 archers left. And even if I barely win a battle against an army such as this, I will have taken severe losses.

My first thought was that maybe the morale of my units are lower than of my enemy's. But before every battle, my units have a morale > 1.5 out of 2 and my opponent has morale that is equal if not less.

My second thought was that maybe there was a huge discrepancy between the leaders of each army. The leader of my army had a martial score of 6, while my enemy had a martial score of 9. That would make a big difference, but I cannot imagine that it would make an army defeat another army that is better equipped and twice its size.

Is there something that I am missing? I just feel like there is nothing I can do to kill my enemy's stacks.

 

[JETAMBER]

A leader of 9 martial is very difficult to beat even with a huge army.

 

[Atlanton]

A leader of 9 martial is very difficult to beat even with a huge army.

Hm...

Is there a way to strengthen my generals so they get a higher martial skill? I hate the idea of just throwing armies at the meat grinder of a skilled general stack.

 

[Melichai]

You absolutely positively must have a high martial score general leading your troops or they fight like schoolgirls. It is far and away the most important attribute in a fight. Or the ability to roll 9s while the enemy rolls 0s on every round. The combat system is different from EU3, but its not exactly clear how it works.

If you want to exploit how vital the martial score is, then assassinate the enemy general on the day before the battle occurs ( so they dont have time to replace them with another general) and you will inflict hideous casualties on the enemy. Killing the general, then massacaring his army tends to be easier than killing them together.

Characters get a higher martial skill whenever they complete the "Become General" and "Become Admiral" missions. Even if the army/fleet is just one unit.

 

[vanin]

While confusing, annoying and sometimes hair-tearing to see your large and good amries being ruined by something much smaller/worse, just because of a bad general, is fairly historical for the time. Compare with Hannibal vs. Romans, where the Carthaginian forces were heavily outnumbered on several occasions.
If you have Vae Victis, letting your generals complete their ambitions will help alot, since some grant +1 martial. Also, the tactic Melichai proposed is while not very fair towards the AI, a good way to boost your chances of victory.
By the way, if you are Rome you will most likely have less generals to draw from since you are a republic (if you have VV that is), while a monarchy like Macedonia can take whoever they deem fit.

 

[stratigo]

While confusing, annoying and sometimes hair-tearing to see your large and good amries being ruined by something much smaller/worse, just because of a bad general, is fairly historical for the time. Compare with Hannibal vs. Romans, where the Carthaginian forces were heavily outnumbered on several occasions.
If you have Vae Victis, letting your generals complete their ambitions will help alot, since some grant +1 martial. Also, the tactic Melichai proposed is while not very fair towards the AI, a good way to boost your chances of victory.
By the way, if you are Rome you will most likely have less generals to draw from since you are a republic (if you have VV that is), while a monarchy like Macedonia can take whoever they deem fit.

Not exactly an adequate comparison. The battles between Hannibal and Rome were not as disperate as it seems they get in this game. And Hannibal had a better trained and equiped force. He contributed, but not half as much as the game takes into account. Playing as Rome in this game is really not much fun because even if you build the uber army of doom, you get nothing but retards for generals (Except 2 or 3) if your lucky to get generals at all. A martial 6 vs a martial 9 when the six has a massive manpower and technology advantage should almost always win.

This and the rediculous attrition rates are what made me give up playing.

 

[Melichai]

There is potentially a way to moderate the effect of uber generals: the static modifiers file contains the limit of the effect of the generals martial stat. By default this is 4, but though I havent done this myself, I dont see any reason why it cant be set to 1 or 2, making a superior general about as decisive as the most severe terrain modifiers.

That said, if youre playing a low manpower country but do have uber generals, that might be the only thing keeping you competitive.

 

[Descartes]

This and the rediculous attrition rates are what made me give up playing.

What makes them ridiculous?

 

[Alfred Packer]

Plus the technological differences between 280BC and 1AD are negligable, at best.

 

[Swuul]

Sounds to me you had no cavalry while the opponents had a couple? The flanks are vulnerable in combat.

That and the not so great general you have. A difference of 3 is really hard. However, as Rome you should be able to cycle in good generals, and herding the MAR 9 characters towards generalship is part of the game.


Things to consider before you go to combat (or in fact, war) :

1) Your general, and the backup general

2) Your troop composition; centre filled with HI and/or phants, archers for killing, cavalry on the flanks so that your army is not rolled from the flanks

3) Terrain where you intend to fight; if you attack over a river into a mountain, you *are* asking blood from your nose.

4) Strength of the regiments (if you have a bunch of 500 men regiments at front, don't be suprised when they croak fast); always *always* always condense your regiments before big battles so that you get full strength regiments fighting at front

5) Laws, decissions, ideas and omens have a *huge* impact; don't go to a major war if you do not have the ones supporting combat

6) Experience of the regiments; shuffle around your most experienced regiments so that you get an elite force which can win that initial big one (if your front HI regiments have in average +40% from experience, they *are* lots tougher than green units and *will* win the day for you)

 

[Hardradi]

Sounds to me you had no cavalry while the opponents had a couple? The flanks are vulnerable in combat.

That and the not so great general you have. A difference of 3 is really hard. However, as Rome you should be able to cycle in good generals, and herding the MAR 9 characters towards generalship is part of the game.


Things to consider before you go to combat (or in fact, war) :

1) Your general, and the backup general

2) Your troop composition; centre filled with HI and/or phants, archers for killing, cavalry on the flanks so that your army is not rolled from the flanks

3) Terrain where you intend to fight; if you attack over a river into a mountain, you *are* asking blood from your nose.

4) Strength of the regiments (if you have a bunch of 500 men regiments at front, don't be suprised when they croak fast); always *always* always condense your regiments before big battles so that you get full strength regiments fighting at front

5) Laws, decissions, ideas and omens have a *huge* impact; don't go to a major war if you do not have the ones supporting combat

6) Experience of the regiments; shuffle around your most experienced regiments so that you get an elite force which can win that initial big one (if your front HI regiments have in average +40% from experience, they *are* lots tougher than green units and *will* win the day for you)

Nice post.

 

[Atlanton]

Thank you so much for the advice guys. It has really helped my understanding of the game.

After playing a bit as Rome, I realize how frustrating it is to play as a republic and always maintain odds stacked in your favor

One thing that confuses me is the idea of unit formation placement. How does that work, i.e. heavy infantry in the front, archers raining death in the back, cavalry on the flanks? I'm assuming it's automatic, but still, it's a bit different from EU3's system.

 

[Swuul]

One thing that confuses me is the idea of unit formation placement. How does that work, i.e. heavy infantry in the front, archers raining death in the back, cavalry on the flanks? I'm assuming it's automatic, but still, it's a bit different from EU3's system.

It is automatic, and actually quite similar to the EU3 battles. Think of HI and elephants as EU3 infantry with highest defensive modifiers, archers as artillery and cavalry as light cavalary.

Much of what is represented in the EU3 military FAQ holds true for Rome too, except the actual combat score formula

You do know that in EU3 the casualty formula is Attack+Dice+Terrain+Leader-Defence = score

In EU:Rome it is, as far as I remember from some test discussions (dont take this is as the truth, this is how I remeber and believe things to be, but I can not give an oath I am 100% correct because I do not actually have the game right here) as follows:

(Dice+Terrain+Leader) x MUP x AB/DB x STR/100 = score

where
Dice = the dice roll
Terrain = the terrain modifier to the dice roll
Leader = the leader bonus or malus
MUP = Miliatry Unit Power, see second table in Tabular Data in the FAQ
AB = Attack Bonus for the "firing" unit (from tech, laws, exp etc)
DB = Defenisive Bonus for the "recieving" unit (from tech, laws, exp etc)
STR = Strength in men of the "firing" unit

For example, lets assume you have a 800 men strong HI regiment attacking a militia regiment. The militia side is led by a MAR 9 leader, the heavy infantry side is led by a MAR 6 leader. The HI side is performing an amphibious landing, and thus get the -2 from terrain. The dice roll is a whopping 7! No other modifiers affect this example (to keep it a bit more simple).

Plugging in the numbers to the formula above (which I would again like to remind is not necessarily true, I don't have the game at hand now, so working from a fuzzy memory) we get as result:
(7-3-2) x 1.1 x 800/100 = 17.6 casualties inflicted

Now the defending side archer regiment (at full strength) return fire on the HI regiment, defenders roll a 5.
(5+3) x 1 x 1000/100 = 80 casulties inflicted on the HI regiment.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Jarkko already answered better than I could, but IMHO two things can't be emphasized too much.

Pick your terrain, even if you have superior army it's suicide to ignore the terrain. And keep your armies balanced, every unit has it's weaknesses and bonuses against other unit types, so unbalanced armies can be wiped out easily. I have ignored these things too often in the past and learned my lesson hard way.

 

[vertinox]

I have found martial rating and combat is vital to win regardless of size.

A 9 general versus a 0 can basically beat other units x2, x3, or even x4 times his size (depending on unit makeup).

 

[GLENN]

Beat them through attrition. Let them take a few provinces, then attack from rear.

 

[Cheexsta]

And always try to defend rivers where possible - the enemy gets a -1 modifier to their dice when attacking over it. It's not much, but it's enough to at least close the gap a bit.