loose 5000 and kill 50???

[fudd_bopo]

Being the defender seems to help alot (especially in Hills/Mountains/Behind Rivers), haven't played the game too much yet though so I could be wrong.

 

[unmerged(9599)]

A shock phase days of skirmishes raids ambushes ect, not a big combat line up against each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a shock phase last days. Haven't played the game yet only EU2 so I could be wrong.

A single man could drop from the tree and ambush a patrol of four or five men, say he keeps setting up ambushes like this for days, or say he charges into the camp at night with a brand he could kill people in their sleep and burn tens maybe burn stores and some of your men starve to death.

Its not a big huge battle ok, and in this type of fight a good general is literally the difference.

 

[Erlend]

these brilliant tactics that you keep defending the AI with are all great (desiese, ambushes etc). but for crying out loud! why doesnt that happen with me? why can't my general do that???

my wishlist is this:

maximum kill ratio of 1 to 3 or 4!

thats bloody plenty!!! even if I slaughter the enemy 1 to 40 I dont like it!!! when you fight a battle were thousands, even tens of thousands, of soldiers run around, it takes one BRILLIANT general to completely destroy your enemy like that!

you guys say that the enemy soldiers are smarter than mine...seeing as the soldiers are peasants on their spare time, I dont think they have the tactical skills equal to a general. lets say they panic, become overwhelmed with bloodlust etc. the generals at that time had little control over their soldiers...they simply lack the training, morale and dicipline!

 

[Von Thoma]

OKAY ... seems somehow I have found the solution:

THE GENERALS ARE OVERPOWERED ...

now I have one, after long struggles and loosing hundred thousend soldiers I collected the points and then I bought a general

It is a 5/5/6/6 star general ...

and now the test fight

2000 cav
4000 inf
2000 art

ACROSS A RIVER into a hill in WINTER

against

8000 inf REBELS SAME inf as mine (Gustavsons)

HERE the RESULTS


WITH GENERAL: I lost 16 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
without General I lost around 2500 ....

so here it is RAMBO with a machine gun ... damn that isn't good ...

so now that general is switching between the armies, one day on the france front next day on the Ottoman front and suddenly your army is 10000% more worth.


PLEASE PARADOX nerve that damn GENERALS DOWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you

 

[magogian]

I want to reiterate the importance of cavalry, especially early in the game. Don't skimp on it. If you are fighting against enemy armies, then have as much as possible. Cavalry just simply slaughters infantry. 2 to 1 ratios of cavarly to infantry seems to work well.

I've learned this the hard way, using infantry armies with only one or two contigents of cavarly. I get slaughtered, unless I have at least half cavarly.

 

[ComradeOm]

OKAY ... seems somehow I have found the solution:

THE GENERALS ARE OVERPOWERED ...

now I have one, after long struggles and loosing hundred thousend soldiers I collected the points and then I bought a general

It is a 5/5/6/6 star general ...

What was your tradition when you bought the general?

 

[Erlend]

YEAH!!! finally someone sees thing the way I see them!

THANKS A MILLION Von Thoma.

seriously paradox...the generals in this game are far overpowered, like von thoma said!

could you please cool them down a bit??? thanks

 

[vertinox]

I dont know what to say anymore...look, don't you find it strange that one man can kill 100? we are talking close combat here! in the shock phase its man vs man...so unless he is steven segal on crack, there is no way a man on a horse can ride down a hundred before biting the dust!

Maybe they were drunk or sleeping

 

[Kung Karl]

They are wounded, lost, deserted, sick, killed, or any of a number of other things that would make them not available to keep fighting for you.
.

Do you have a qutote to the page in the manual that states this? Or is this just something you make up to justify the insane results this game produce so you don't have to face the truth?

 

[gdo01]

Do you have a qutote to the page in the manual that states this? Or is this just something you make up to justify the insane results this game produce so you don't have to face the truth?

This has been said many times before and is a feature of all Paradox games. For example, HOI2 had a trickleback feature where the "dead" would return because they were just injured not dead. All the other Paradox games have kept this feature but have no longer used the trickleback feature to my knowledge.

 

[Kung Karl]

This has been said many times before and is a feature of all Paradox games. For example, HOI2 had a trickleback feature where the "dead" would return because they were just injured not dead. All the other Paradox games have kept this feature but have no longer used the trickleback feature to my knowledge.

ok

 

[Evie HJ]

This is how bad a leaderless or poorly led army can get *in history*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes

And that was without a brilliant enemy general to precipitate events.

 

[Vezina]

Battle of Thermopylae. Look it up and learn.

~10-1 kill ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

 

[unmerged(4444)]

Guillaume and Vezina, these sorts of results should be the exception rather than the rule (they were irl). Besides, Thermopylae was a matter of terrian as much as generalship.

 

[Evie HJ]

And this sort of result IS the exception in the game.

In about a hundred battles throughout my Burgundy game so far, the only battles I've seen with kill ratios even remotely approaching this sort of result were those that involved a dramatically advantaged side (ie, with a defending army that drastically outnumbered the attacker, had a better leader, better starting morale, and better units (tech level-wise)). And even then I don't think I've seen 1-to-100 kill ratios.

 

[Vezina]

Battle of Austerlitz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz

Generalship matters. A lot.

~9,000 French lost, the vast majority of those wounded.

~27,000 Russians and Austrians lost. Over half being dead.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

This is how bad a leaderless or poorly led army can get *in history*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes

And that was without a brilliant enemy general to precipitate events.

Laugh and cry...
In fact, that was without any enemy general... or a soldier...

I can only imagine Ottomans wondering what the hell happened when they got to the "battle"field...

And this sort of result IS the exception in the game.

In about a hundred battles throughout my Burgundy game so far, the only battles I've seen with kill ratios even remotely approaching this sort of result were those that involved a dramatically advantaged side (ie, with a defending army that drastically outnumbered the attacker, had a better leader, better starting morale, and better units (tech level-wise)). And even then I don't think I've seen 1-to-100 kill ratios.

In my Russia game, a cavalry-only army commaded by a shock-6 general defending against slightly more numerous enemy (mostly infantry) force without any commander often inflicted 1000-to-1 losses. However, my army was indeed overpowering and my tech level higher.
Though that is still short of 10000-to-0 losses Ottomans "inflicted" at Karansebes

Whenever infantry is used, results are much more modest.

Personally, I find cavalry to be overpowered. I am yet to find use for infantry pre-1700 for anything other than assaulting fortresses.

 

[Vezina]

And this sort of result IS the exception in the game.

In about a hundred battles throughout my Burgundy game so far, the only battles I've seen with kill ratios even remotely approaching this sort of result were those that involved a dramatically advantaged side (ie, with a defending army that drastically outnumbered the attacker, had a better leader, better starting morale, and better units (tech level-wise)). And even then I don't think I've seen 1-to-100 kill ratios.

Exactly. The only time I've seen results like these is when I'm fighting a vastly superior General across bad terrain. People need to lose the veil of Invulnerability that seems to be so dominant when playing games. You make mistakes, you pay for them. Try to avoid fighting foes when they have Napoleon's, Gustav Adolphus's, and the like. One of the biggest mistakes you can make.

 

[Vezina]

Guillaume and Vezina, these sorts of results should be the exception rather than the rule (they were irl). Besides, Thermopylae was a matter of terrian as much as generalship.

So you don't think that a head-on assault of a 14-meter wide pass is poor generalship?

 

[NikkTheTrick]

Guillaume and Vezina, these sorts of results should be the exception rather than the rule (they were irl). Besides, Thermopylae was a matter of terrian as much as generalship.

Generalship IS (among other things) using terrain. "The terrain was bad" is an excuse for poor generals.