Ideal Army Composition?

[Bad Nerd]

Whenever I play, I tend to divide my army into standardised units, so I know that all my units are reasonably equally capable, and I can quickly see which are suffering from attrition, or opperating significantly below their intended capacity

My Standard Unit (Which I by no means claim to be the best, or indeed, any good at all) consists of 8000 men, divided into 3 cavalry units and 5 Infantry units. Once artillery becomes available, I tend to add 2 artillery-pieces to my standard army, for a total of a nice round 10,000 men in each army.

I find that this fits me reasonably well, and that 10 units falls juuuust within the supply-limits of most territories in the world.

So the question is two-fold:

1) Do the rest of you use standardised army setups? (Yes, I realise that there is significant math behind these decissions, much of which can now be binned after the changes in HtTT)
and
2) I occasionally see people using armies of 15-20-30,000 men...don't they get annihilated by attrition in all but the most develloped provinces on the world? (Even Brother Bean in the pre-release HtTT AAR is running around Anatolia with an army of 20,000+ men...he MUST have lost a very large number, due to the supply limit)

 

[DukeSforza]

Alot of the time, I like to field armies that are pretty evenly matched between cavalry and infantry. I know alot of people on here like to field all cavalry stacks for their offensive value, but I often play poor states where investing in a true all mounted army would be just cost prohibitive for most of the game. So I like to strike a balance and I usually don't keep around stacks of more than 15,000 men precisely due to attrition.

This is naturally more important when attacking other nations, I only keep big stacks together until the opposing army is eliminated, then I divide them into 5,000 man stacks (2,000 cav, 3,000 infantry) for siege duty and new-unit stomping. Of course one of my favorite tactics is to not even enter the enemy's territory and let him waste his manpower in my own land before attacking him, so I'm almost always in a defensive posture, which can be sweet with the bonus forts you get over time. Of course I don't go on WC missions either and I rather enjoy being an economic power. So I suppose I'm not entirely typical here, I will say though that I rarely use truly standardized armies except in VERY specific situations. For instance, when I invade India as a European power I always deliver 30,000 men to Maldive and then Travancore and then divide my troops into two identical 15,000 man armies for maximum destructive value. Attrition can be unfortunate, but in that case I'm looking to take territory and end the war quickly.

What I'd like to do is ask the AI why it's forming 30 unit armies for invasions, not smart at all!

 

[xGhost4000x]

Whenever I play, I tend to divide my army into standardised units, so I know that all my units are reasonably equally capable, and I can quickly see which are suffering from attrition, or opperating significantly below their intended capacity

My Standard Unit (Which I by no means claim to be the best, or indeed, any good at all) consists of 8000 men, divided into 3 cavalry units and 5 Infantry units. Once artillery becomes available, I tend to add 2 artillery-pieces to my standard army, for a total of a nice round 10,000 men in each army.

I find that this fits me reasonably well, and that 10 units falls juuuust within the supply-limits of most territories in the world.

So the question is two-fold:

1) Do the rest of you use standardised army setups? (Yes, I realise that there is significant math behind these decissions, much of which can now be binned after the changes in HtTT)
and
2) I occasionally see people using armies of 15-20-30,000 men...don't they get annihilated by attrition in all but the most develloped provinces on the world? (Even Brother Bean in the pre-release HtTT AAR is running around Anatolia with an army of 20,000+ men...he MUST have lost a very large number, due to the supply limit)

My standard army consists of 8 Infantry, 2 Cavalry, and 2 Canons, generally followed by a reserve force which is identical but slightly smaller, this works wonders for sieges as I can siege a territory and initiate an attack while my reserves are a few days away, once the attack is finished if my main force did not take the province they retreat while my reserves continue the siege, thus eliminating the chance for the ai to pick off my army while it is at low morale.

I also keep regiments of 5 cavalry spread throughout my empire to respond to rebellions, depending on which nation I am and the strength of the rebels it can be up to 7-8 regiments.

 

[JimboOmega]

2) I occasionally see people using armies of 15-20-30,000 men...don't they get annihilated by attrition in all but the most develloped provinces on the world? (Even Brother Bean in the pre-release HtTT AAR is running around Anatolia with an army of 20,000+ men...he MUST have lost a very large number, due to the supply limit)

I think the AI still doesn't use scorched earth, in which case, the maximum losses you take is 5%, outside of certain seasons (don't campaign in the winter).

The fact is that winning decisive battles is very, very important now. So it's useful to assemble a blob for taking down the biggest enemy stack, then scattering it for seiges, then reassembling if neccessary for another blob.

There is always a calculated risk. You can't assemble the biggest blob and just march through enemy territory, because attrition eats at you, but you can't field a lot of small armies because they'll get destroyed piecemeal. Ideally you crush the enemy's main army quickly then settle in to siege most of their provinces.

Combat is actually something you have to think about a lot in this game. We've come a long way from the old days where ping pong was guaranteed and you could get full reinforcements in enemy territory.

 

[unmerged(115611)]

Until land 18 i use only large pure cav stacks, around 7-10 k strength. At land tech 18 (western nation anyway) i add a stack with 6 inf 6 art 3 cav. You will want to have as much artillery as infantry because the artillery is by far better in fire phase, but you will need infantry to protect them. So equal numbers of art and inf.

and as the game progresses you can add regiments to your stacks as supply limit increases with tech level. At 1600 or so youll be easily able to have 15k stacks without attrition.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Early game, at least until LT 13:
Mostly pure CAV. If you are in a geographic situation with lots of mountains and hills, you might want to consider a mixed approach.

Later: 50-60% INF, 50-40% ART and 2-4 CAV as flankers.

 

[Nassau]

I tend to have 2 infantry regiments for every cavalry regiment, and 2 cavalry for every artilery regiment. And about 20-25 regiments per army. Going up to sometimes 50/60 regiments later in game, and average around 40. I don't like sieging, too slow, so I assault, but then you need a large army.

 

[Cikomyr]

There is always a calculated risk. You can't assemble the biggest blob and just march through enemy territory, because attrition eats at you, but you can't field a lot of small armies because they'll get destroyed piecemeal. Ideally you crush the enemy's main army quickly then settle in to siege most of their provinces.

I don't want to sound jerky, or smart ass, or anything of the kind.

But you do realise that you simply re-invented Napoleonic Warfare? Actually, most of the kind of warfare pre-mechanisation.

 

[yellowbiz]

I go for the nice rounded up numbers, and never mix Infantry with Cavalry.
14th C. - Stacks of 5k, no Infantry at all.
15th C. - If MP and FL allows, then I'll do stacks of 10k, still no Infantry.
16th C. - Same as above.
17th C. - Stacks of 10k and with a single stack of 20k Infantry
18th C. - Same as above.. except that I put several doomstacks of Cavalry in places such as the French border, or the Timurids/OE border, so to scare them, I don't really use them unless I get attacked by said nations.

I like to play with the money cheat but I'm not proud of that, I can handle without cheats but it's just more enjoyable to me. (My game in HTTT with Castille is without cheats at all, yay for me ^^)

 

[unmerged(49463)]

I like to play with the money cheat but I'm not proud of that,

same as me but i like to role play that im the count of monte cristo and i found treasure chests full of gold!

 

[unmerged(139882)]

I tend to group like with like... In groups of 10. So 10k Infantry, in one, cavalry in another... I sorta roleplay. It all depends on my nation. If I play as Mongols/East European, I use all cav, if I am a western European or East Asian, I use mainly infatry with cavalry reserves.

 

[unmerged(106498)]

I tend to group like with like... In groups of 10. So 10k Infantry, in one, cavalry in another... I sorta roleplay. It all depends on my nation. If I play as Mongols/East European, I use all cav, if I am a western European or East Asian, I use mainly infatry with cavalry reserves.

I did this pre HTTT, but with slow cav, it just doesn't seem to be that useful to me to seperate them

 

[henkalv]

Inn htth i use 6 inf 3 cav armies until i get arty, when i get arty i add 3 regiments if it to each army ending up with stacks with 12 regiments

 

[Tjena Med Laxen]

When I played a Milan game once, I was ahead in most techs, so I created four armies of 10/10/10

With kickass generals those four stacks did very well in crushing the french hordes.

 

[JimboOmega]

Inn htth i use 6 inf 3 cav armies until i get arty, when i get arty i add 3 regiments if it to each army ending up with stacks with 12 regiments

does arty give a tactics bonus?

It's very expensive - what makes it worthwhile?

 

[GAGA Extrem]

ART can shoot from the second row (w/ 1/2 of it's regular fire attack), giving you maximum firepower per frontage. In addition, 1/2 of the ART defence value is given to the unit in front of it.

 

[unmerged(76922)]

My military is very standardized, and follows fort level.

Fort level 1: 8 inf, 2 cav
Fort level 2: 11 inf, 4 cav
Fort level 3: 14 inf, 6 cav
Fort level 4: 20 inf, 10 cav
Fort level 5: 20 inf, 10 cav, 10 art
Fort level 6: 20 inf, 10 cav, 30 art

Basicly, I beef up based on what I am going to be able to support without attrition in my own territory assuming max level forts - and getting at least one province in the area upgraded accordingly is a priorty when I hit each new fort level, so I've a place to park the army when not in use. But when at war... I'm usually a quick in and out attacker. I find I can generally go in, assault 3-4 provinces, then pull out and get a peace deal for a couple of them before the enemy doomstack can respond or take any of my undefended rear provinces, in which case I don't need to worry two much about attrition. If I need to face the doomstack to get peace, I generally do it on the defensive on my territory, which means my high forts and therefor minimal attrition worries.

 

[Beroge]

There's got to be an "ideal" stack, based on the balance of modifiers and unit bonuses.

For instance, I know that infantry receives a "tactics" bonus, that cavalry receives a "flanking" bonus, and that Artillery receives a "fire" bonus in the second row. Now, bearing in mind these factors, plus the limiting factor of attrition, what would be the most efficient stack composition for the (roughly) three periods of the game (early, middle, late)?

This should be calculable based on the actually unit states for a western nation (for the sake of clarity, we will for go any modifiers linked to NIs and we should assume an unmodified install of HTTT), Any one out there savvy enough with Math(s) and data collection to tackle this question?

True, this stack composition would not be (necessarily) the best for some tactics (e.g. Zerg rushing with infantry stacks for quick assaults and a quick peace), but it should provide a good baseline for objectively stating the most "efficient" unit composition.

 

[unmerged(69928)]

Even if there is a definitive "best stack" mathematically, it may not fit your particular style of play. It's one of those peculiar things that can never really be figured out exactly, only generally.

Not sure if I am liking the slower CAV or not. I can understand the reasoning, but they didn't make all those movies about the Cavalry showing up at just the right time for nothing. It seems silly I can't hard ride a few units "to the rescue"...

I can see where after 3 or four provinces I would have to stop for a day, but I should still be able to travel faster than guys on foot in those short, emergency type rides.

T

 

[SeverusFelix]

Not sure if I am liking the slower CAV or not. I can understand the reasoning, but they didn't make all those movies about the Cavalry showing up at just the right time for nothing. It seems silly I can't hard ride a few units "to the rescue"...

Oh, they certainly do make good use of their superior speed-- in their flanking abilities in battle. Bear in mind that even the smallest province is a big place in human (and equine) terms. Horses don't generally oblige their masters by galloping hundreds of miles. I am extremely happy with the end of superfast cavalry. If nothing else, it means I A) don't have to micro-manage seperate stacks of cavalry and infantry, and B) battles make a lot more sense, with no ring-wraith units charging over the caucasus to surprise retreating Hordelings in Astrakhan. I can still get the jump on someone, but then only if I have a good general. Normal Speed Cav may be my favorite change of all.