Not talking about the weird frontlines and armies teleporting around, sometimes overseas. That is obviously broken.
The problem is two armies engaging each other in battles, across a frontline. As it should be.
1-Single battle at all times, per frontline. Does this increase with tech? Because this makes sense early game, where Napoleonic Warfare was all about massing your troops and beating the enemy in pitched battles, hopefully defeating them in detail. But as time went on, armies switched to frontlines and larger fronts with no dense infantry formations. Wouldn't want that against a machine gun or howitzer...
2-I mean, it would make sense if battles sized properly. The number of battalions that engage on both sides are a bit low. Very much so. I commit 200 battalions and Russians commit 300 battalions, its usually 10 vs 10 or even less. Which brings me to...
3-The number of battalions that join both sides seem to be completely random. Whoever thought this was a good idea? This is obviously a bug. This makes conscription totally pointless because having superior numbers means nothing. It's totally random. You lose the equal number of battles, if your stats are equal. What happened to Napoleonic Warfare and beyond? The prevailing idea around this period was to create massive armies through mobilization and overwhelm the enemy. Prussia defeated France due to its more efficient, faster mobilization in the 1870 war. And this seems to be a non-factor in the game.
Case in point, I had a war with Egypt as Ottomans where things devolved to two frontlines. We both deployed 70 battalions to one front, and in the other Egyptians had ten. I deployed the rest of my army, more than 100 battalions, there to quickly overwhelm the badly outnumbered force and then crush the remaining 70 on the other front. Guess what. I'm outnumbered in the battle! And it goes back and forth until their battalions are too battered to resist (takes months).
Paradox?
The problem is two armies engaging each other in battles, across a frontline. As it should be.
1-Single battle at all times, per frontline. Does this increase with tech? Because this makes sense early game, where Napoleonic Warfare was all about massing your troops and beating the enemy in pitched battles, hopefully defeating them in detail. But as time went on, armies switched to frontlines and larger fronts with no dense infantry formations. Wouldn't want that against a machine gun or howitzer...
2-I mean, it would make sense if battles sized properly. The number of battalions that engage on both sides are a bit low. Very much so. I commit 200 battalions and Russians commit 300 battalions, its usually 10 vs 10 or even less. Which brings me to...
3-The number of battalions that join both sides seem to be completely random. Whoever thought this was a good idea? This is obviously a bug. This makes conscription totally pointless because having superior numbers means nothing. It's totally random. You lose the equal number of battles, if your stats are equal. What happened to Napoleonic Warfare and beyond? The prevailing idea around this period was to create massive armies through mobilization and overwhelm the enemy. Prussia defeated France due to its more efficient, faster mobilization in the 1870 war. And this seems to be a non-factor in the game.
Case in point, I had a war with Egypt as Ottomans where things devolved to two frontlines. We both deployed 70 battalions to one front, and in the other Egyptians had ten. I deployed the rest of my army, more than 100 battalions, there to quickly overwhelm the badly outnumbered force and then crush the remaining 70 on the other front. Guess what. I'm outnumbered in the battle! And it goes back and forth until their battalions are too battered to resist (takes months).
Paradox?
- 19
- 4
- 3
- 1