Shahed said:
Doesen't matter if your troops are split up: Attrition is based on total number of soldiers (IIRC yours AND the enemy's!) in one province.
At least that was the case in EU2.
loose 5000 and kill 50???
- Thread starter Erlend
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Doesen't matter if your troops are split up: Attrition is based on total number of soldiers (IIRC yours AND the enemy's!) in one province.
At least that was the case in EU2.
Yeah but I only attacked with 20K when they had more than 10K. Otherwise I always use small armies. Ahh wait I think I get it.. you mean if I send it 10K and they have 12K then attrition is based on both armies totals ?
The way I work is I use small armies and gang large armies if they show up, but I always use less than 10K if possible.
What is the way to go for imposing huge losses on the enemy while minimising your own ?
Thanks for the help.
The way I work is I use small armies and gang large armies if they show up, but I always use less than 10K if possible.
What is the way to go for imposing huge losses on the enemy while minimising your own ?
Thanks for the help.
I've found the casualty results to be very lucid in the extreme. There's no longer a question of why the results come out they way they do. The only fog left is knowing what your infantry and cavalry fire/shock base values are and they can also be found in-game in the ledger now!
A lot of talk in this thread smacks of exaggeration. It's very easy to see a result and ignore the ones that don't fit your theory. I know I do it all the time and I'm very certain the rest of you do aswell.
I have yet to run into results like the ones being talked about here, but I've had some massive defeats when conditions are poor for my army composition.
However, it's always easy to see why you're losing. You can see the dice rolls, you can see the leader advantage, and you can see the terrain effects.
I can agree that perhaps leaders are given a too large emphasis when it comes to results, but that's an entirely different discussion.
Try to ask "Why am I getting these results" instead of asking "Is the game bugged?"
The quick answers are:
1. Your army composition, attack/defense conditions and leadership is lacking. Try to find out how and you'll find out how to avoid it.
2. No, it's not bugged. In fact, it works perfectly fine. It's perhaps a bit TOO lucid in the results. There's no longer any ambiguity and I think that it's perhaps too easy to master the combat system.
A lot of talk in this thread smacks of exaggeration. It's very easy to see a result and ignore the ones that don't fit your theory. I know I do it all the time and I'm very certain the rest of you do aswell.
I have yet to run into results like the ones being talked about here, but I've had some massive defeats when conditions are poor for my army composition.
However, it's always easy to see why you're losing. You can see the dice rolls, you can see the leader advantage, and you can see the terrain effects.
I can agree that perhaps leaders are given a too large emphasis when it comes to results, but that's an entirely different discussion.
Try to ask "Why am I getting these results" instead of asking "Is the game bugged?"
The quick answers are:
1. Your army composition, attack/defense conditions and leadership is lacking. Try to find out how and you'll find out how to avoid it.
2. No, it's not bugged. In fact, it works perfectly fine. It's perhaps a bit TOO lucid in the results. There's no longer any ambiguity and I think that it's perhaps too easy to master the combat system.
To answer the question, "How should I proceed?"
I've found that even into the middle of the 16th century, it's important to have cavalry heavy components.
In the 15th century infantry is pretty much worthless except for sieges and assaults. Go with 4-6 cavalry regiments and you can savage most enemy armies. Only when fighting large nations like France, Burgundy or Austria may it be necessary to bring more troops. If you've got a good leader it may still be enough with the 4-6 base component.
Attrition saps a lot of manpower. If you're going with the large army doctrine, you'd better be prepared to annihilate the enemy armies rapidly as otherwise you'll be winning the battles but losing the attrition war. A smaller army will suffer less attrition and you can thus pick and choose where you want to engage the enemy. Engage under your own terms and you'll come out on top.
With a smaller army it's also important to have a good leader. Focus your good leaders on the cavalry armies and you'll find casualty numbers will smile on you in no time.
Annihilate the enemy infantry with your cavalry and force him to use his precious manpower in reinforcing what is essentially worthless troops while avoiding fighting his cavalry. If he loses 50% of his manpower reinforcing infantry that can't fight for shit, that's 50% less cavalry you have to fight.
Avoid engaging enemy cavalry unless you're sure you'll win easily or you really really have to break that siege.
I would for instance never engage an enemy in equal numbers and in equal generalship unless I'm in a position where I've basically already lost the war and I'm just fighting for time to make a graceful exit.
Follow these simple rules, and you too can be a winner:
1. Avoid, maneuver, strike where they're weak.
2. Save manpower by avoiding attrition and avoiding pitched battle. Make sure they lose manpower by attacking their weak armies and forcing their powerful armies to fight in territory that causes them attrition.
3. Never seek decisive battle unless you know you'll win it.
4. Choose the place for the battle. Don't let the enemy choose it.
I've found that even into the middle of the 16th century, it's important to have cavalry heavy components.
In the 15th century infantry is pretty much worthless except for sieges and assaults. Go with 4-6 cavalry regiments and you can savage most enemy armies. Only when fighting large nations like France, Burgundy or Austria may it be necessary to bring more troops. If you've got a good leader it may still be enough with the 4-6 base component.
Attrition saps a lot of manpower. If you're going with the large army doctrine, you'd better be prepared to annihilate the enemy armies rapidly as otherwise you'll be winning the battles but losing the attrition war. A smaller army will suffer less attrition and you can thus pick and choose where you want to engage the enemy. Engage under your own terms and you'll come out on top.
With a smaller army it's also important to have a good leader. Focus your good leaders on the cavalry armies and you'll find casualty numbers will smile on you in no time.
Annihilate the enemy infantry with your cavalry and force him to use his precious manpower in reinforcing what is essentially worthless troops while avoiding fighting his cavalry. If he loses 50% of his manpower reinforcing infantry that can't fight for shit, that's 50% less cavalry you have to fight.
Avoid engaging enemy cavalry unless you're sure you'll win easily or you really really have to break that siege.
I would for instance never engage an enemy in equal numbers and in equal generalship unless I'm in a position where I've basically already lost the war and I'm just fighting for time to make a graceful exit.
Follow these simple rules, and you too can be a winner:
1. Avoid, maneuver, strike where they're weak.
2. Save manpower by avoiding attrition and avoiding pitched battle. Make sure they lose manpower by attacking their weak armies and forcing their powerful armies to fight in territory that causes them attrition.
3. Never seek decisive battle unless you know you'll win it.
4. Choose the place for the battle. Don't let the enemy choose it.
Extremely good leaders rocked the world in EU2 when controlled by a player and that's still the case in EU3. The major difference in EU3 is first, the unpredictability in who has got them and whether there's anybody around at all for the opposition strong enough to face a super-leader in a fight on somewhat equal terms, second, that the AI will occasionally use them somewhat sensibly, and third, that since they don't die just because the army they are in gets overrun, they'll haunt you for a lot longer even when the AI does use them foolishly.
In EU3 it can make a huge difference whether a nation has a warrior-king or not - those that don't had better hope they've got a high military tradition and used it to get good leaders.
Regarding EU3 and wars in general, read Slargos' advice above - it is EU2 wisdom recycled, but even more important in EU3 than in EU2.
In EU3 it can make a huge difference whether a nation has a warrior-king or not - those that don't had better hope they've got a high military tradition and used it to get good leaders.
Regarding EU3 and wars in general, read Slargos' advice above - it is EU2 wisdom recycled, but even more important in EU3 than in EU2.
I wasn't saying that the combat is bugged. I just say that cavalry is overpowered - as it is very strong now it should be more expensive and the time to replace losses should be longer. That way infantry has a point.
As this is a strategy game, there should be a strategy against pure cavalry armies.
As this is a strategy game, there should be a strategy against pure cavalry armies.
A bigger pure cavalry army?Darktooth said:
Or just use combined arms in rough terrain. Or use overwhelming odds.Also, cavalry cannot assault fortresses. They are not the answer to everything, not even early on.
Peter Ebbesen said:
I think the major difference is that armies are smaller and you have to pay more careful attention to attrition now than you had to in EU2. While in EU2 you could run around with 30k cavalry in most of Europe without problem, in Eu3 you start getting severe attrition already with 10k.
In addition, cavalry stays superior in pure killing power much longer than it did in EU2.
In my current game I am at land 16, it's the late 16th century and I find that Cavalry is still the most important component when it comes to destroying the enemy, while infantry is becoming more useful in actually winning battles by lowering enemy morale.
Should things be different? I don't know, but I do know I like cavalry.
Ok I've just tried it out again. Just to make it clear that something is wrong here:
I am the Ottoman Empire with land tech 13 and a king with warfare 8.
My enemy is the mameluks with land tech 3 and a king with warfare 4.
I've attacked with a mixed army (8000/8000/2000) and a pure cavalry army (8000/0/0).
My king, as a general, has a shock value of 4.
In the majority of the battles my soldiers got butchered. I mostly won the battles though because of my higher morale, but in the long run I've lost around 3 times more soldiers than the mameluks did (in some battles even worse although the odds favored me).
Good leaders and cavalry can't be the only answer.
And I have to say again that the fire values of your troops can't be compared to the shock values - my Eastern Steppe Cavalry has fire 2 and shock 2 but they never inflict fire damage.
Don't tell me I'm too stupid to lead my armies the right way - I've played EU2 a lot and I've read the strategy guide and the manual of EU3 just to be sure.
I am the Ottoman Empire with land tech 13 and a king with warfare 8.
My enemy is the mameluks with land tech 3 and a king with warfare 4.
I've attacked with a mixed army (8000/8000/2000) and a pure cavalry army (8000/0/0).
My king, as a general, has a shock value of 4.
In the majority of the battles my soldiers got butchered. I mostly won the battles though because of my higher morale, but in the long run I've lost around 3 times more soldiers than the mameluks did (in some battles even worse although the odds favored me).
Good leaders and cavalry can't be the only answer.
And I have to say again that the fire values of your troops can't be compared to the shock values - my Eastern Steppe Cavalry has fire 2 and shock 2 but they never inflict fire damage.
Don't tell me I'm too stupid to lead my armies the right way - I've played EU2 a lot and I've read the strategy guide and the manual of EU3 just to be sure.
What regiment types are you using? I remember fighting France as Burgundy (equal tech) using condetta infantry; I was inflicting and suffering few casualties, but winning (long) battles. Switching to Gaelic infantry (forgot the name for the moment), I am winning much faster and inflicting higher damage when things go right, but suffer more casualties when I loose.Darktooth said:
No one is accusing anyone of stupidity.
Ignorance, yes.
Stupidity, no.
Given that there are people who are able to inflict casualties on the AI in the same proportion that the AI is able to inflict casualties on some people, there is obviously nothing wrong with the model in itself.
It may be difficult to master, however, which may be a reason to fine tune it.
It may also be counter-intuitive and cause an inexperienced player to build their strategy around army compositions and tactics that don't work. This may also be a reason to fine tune it.
I must admit, however, that I am taken aback by these stories of 2 cannon beats 10 000 cavalry since even in the days of EU2 they were extremely rare, as far as I can recall.
Most of the reasons for your casualties are in plain sight in the combat screen, the ledger and the unit statistics if you look for them.
Ignorance, yes.
Stupidity, no.
Given that there are people who are able to inflict casualties on the AI in the same proportion that the AI is able to inflict casualties on some people, there is obviously nothing wrong with the model in itself.
It may be difficult to master, however, which may be a reason to fine tune it.
It may also be counter-intuitive and cause an inexperienced player to build their strategy around army compositions and tactics that don't work. This may also be a reason to fine tune it.
I must admit, however, that I am taken aback by these stories of 2 cannon beats 10 000 cavalry since even in the days of EU2 they were extremely rare, as far as I can recall.
Most of the reasons for your casualties are in plain sight in the combat screen, the ledger and the unit statistics if you look for them.
Slargos said:
This is good advice, some of it seems very close to what Sun Tzu said
You really do have to consider all of this when deciding if you should go to war. You cant simply mass a bigger force and expect to win by sheer numbers or tech.
I for one am happy with the way it works, I rarely/never lose in any Pdox games.(mainly HOI2) So the fact that its quite possible to lose becuase of poor descisions or strategy is fun & realistic. Going to war was/is a risky business, any number of things can go wrong in the fields of battle.
Attrition is one of the biggest killers, trying to cram 50,000 men into one province is a sure way to drain all your manpower. I wouldnt do this unless I knew I would win the battle and by doing so end the war. If you were to lose that battle good luck recovering from it.
Well that's all good but what about answering the question ?
"What is the way to go for imposing huge losses on the enemy while minimising your own ?"
"What is the way to go for imposing huge losses on the enemy while minimising your own ?"
I’m glad to see that so many have posted on this thread! it shows that the subject is worth talking about and I really appreciate that! but a few things bug me though...
some of you have said that the reason for the large losses in the battles are due to attrition but attrition only updates itself at the beginning of every month...so why suffer attrition every day in a battle, I'm sure they bring with them some food for the battles too...
whenever an army invades a province the fighting represent many battles over several weeks, to represent a campaign in that province. alright, so the attacker should take more casualties because he is attacking, and doesn't have the luxury of choosing the field of battle. but what if the generals are keen on chasing the enemy out, through counter-attacks? wouldn't that turn the table?
I have read every single post here and I see that you have found the stories of the great battles, where one side crushed the other, or started fighting with themselves. but lets face facts. those are great stories and all, but can you really say that an entire campaign can be cursed with bad luck and slaughter?
the dice rolls are good for randomising the battles, but there is too much difference between a 0 on the dice and 9 on the dice. all you need is to get unlucky a few days and your army is gone. the dice system in the RISK board game is a good example of a well balanced dice system. but the one in EUIII is just off the charts!
the feature with the war tradition is great idea!!! but the fact that you have to fight wars all the time in order to have a chance in any war isn’t too great. what about spies? can't they spy on other nations and see what they do to make their armies work? if you have a king with great military skill, why doesn't he affect the tradition? military tradition should be affected by these factors: battles, the kings military skills, the quality slider, the land slider, neighbour army tradition...etc. but never so much that it always increased of course!!!
I also think its stupid that generals can move at supersonic speeds! I mean come on, fighting one battle on the western border of the country, and then leave that army, only to become the leader of an army on the eastern border the same day...now THAT isn't realistic.
the best part of this thread is where people started calling me a liar...saying that I only throw numbers out for the fun of it (I actually fought 15 battles with bohemia and got told every time. the war was fought both in bohemia and in Austria, in many different provinces. so please don't throw out assumptions and simple solutions to a big problem). those of you who haven’t experienced a totally messed up war (or a few of them for that matter) can count themselves lucky. but can you honestly say that you have never butchered the enemy to the point where it just got stupid?
Like I've said earlier in the thread I hate it when I slaughter the enemy. I just find it hard to believe that something like that happens as often as it does in this game. I am a HUGE fan of paradox, but I must say that so far the games war system is not impressive. maybe I'll go back to playing EUII
some of you have said that the reason for the large losses in the battles are due to attrition but attrition only updates itself at the beginning of every month...so why suffer attrition every day in a battle, I'm sure they bring with them some food for the battles too...
whenever an army invades a province the fighting represent many battles over several weeks, to represent a campaign in that province. alright, so the attacker should take more casualties because he is attacking, and doesn't have the luxury of choosing the field of battle. but what if the generals are keen on chasing the enemy out, through counter-attacks? wouldn't that turn the table?
I have read every single post here and I see that you have found the stories of the great battles, where one side crushed the other, or started fighting with themselves. but lets face facts. those are great stories and all, but can you really say that an entire campaign can be cursed with bad luck and slaughter?
the dice rolls are good for randomising the battles, but there is too much difference between a 0 on the dice and 9 on the dice. all you need is to get unlucky a few days and your army is gone. the dice system in the RISK board game is a good example of a well balanced dice system. but the one in EUIII is just off the charts!
the feature with the war tradition is great idea!!! but the fact that you have to fight wars all the time in order to have a chance in any war isn’t too great. what about spies? can't they spy on other nations and see what they do to make their armies work? if you have a king with great military skill, why doesn't he affect the tradition? military tradition should be affected by these factors: battles, the kings military skills, the quality slider, the land slider, neighbour army tradition...etc. but never so much that it always increased of course!!!
I also think its stupid that generals can move at supersonic speeds! I mean come on, fighting one battle on the western border of the country, and then leave that army, only to become the leader of an army on the eastern border the same day...now THAT isn't realistic.
the best part of this thread is where people started calling me a liar...saying that I only throw numbers out for the fun of it (I actually fought 15 battles with bohemia and got told every time. the war was fought both in bohemia and in Austria, in many different provinces. so please don't throw out assumptions and simple solutions to a big problem). those of you who haven’t experienced a totally messed up war (or a few of them for that matter) can count themselves lucky. but can you honestly say that you have never butchered the enemy to the point where it just got stupid?
Like I've said earlier in the thread I hate it when I slaughter the enemy. I just find it hard to believe that something like that happens as often as it does in this game. I am a HUGE fan of paradox, but I must say that so far the games war system is not impressive. maybe I'll go back to playing EUII
Piggy said:This is good advice, some of it seems very close to what Sun Tzu said
I may not have commanded chineese soldiers, but I bet I've fought more campaigns than old Tzu.
Erlend said:
Food was generally obtained from the surrounding areas, they had to forage or steal for it. I doubt the soldiers carried a few days supply of food on their backs.
Entire campaigns plagued by bad luck? Certainly there was and still is today.
You mentioned your general had a shock value of 1 compared to the enemy's 5. Thats a pretty big difference, I say you got out-generalled. Land tech 3 vs 2? The difference isnt worth mentioning, at this point cavalry still reign supreme so I ask this. What was the ratio of cavalry to foot in your army and his. Did he have more cavalry then you? if he did and you combine that with his general's shock value of 5 and you have your reasons for losing right there.
Was it Winter?
Yes I have butchered the enemy, Ive also been butchered by the enemy and lost the war. I dont think its one-sided.
Last edited:
I would never accuse you of stupidity, but you are ignorant of one point on which I will enlighten you - and it is a point in which EU3 works like EU2 but one can be deceived by the interface.Darktooth said:
Just like in EU2 all units have a base strength in fire, shock, and morale determined by your tech level. (You can see them in the land tech textfile if you want to read them, but they work pretty much as you expect and is almost identical to EU2)
The values you see for individual regiments "fire 2 and shock 2" in-game are combat modifiers for the regiment type when respectively firing and shocking. A regiment of a specific type thus increases its fire and shock values as your tech level increases but the modifiers remain the same.
Think of the regimental fire/shock modifiers as the effects of doctrine and organisation (and they tend to be higher for later generations of regiment types, which is why you'll usually be using the newest types made available), not as the effects of the weaponry they are equipped with, that is covered directly by the tech level - your Eastern Steppe Cavalry vary considerably in efficiency whether they are equipped with "Steppe Pony Mk.1 and Sword" or "Steppe Pony Mk. V (turbo) and Sabre+rifle"
Like in EU2, your cavalry has zero strength fire at low techlevels and the fire modifier from regiment type is thus almost useless to your cavalry. On the other hand, your cavalry has a much higher base shock value than infantry (4 times as much IIRC), so for cavalry (early techlevels) you should always go for the regiment type that has the best shock modifier.
In other words, a "shock 3" type infantry is very shocking compared to other infantry, but it just cut it when compared with even the lowest shock type for cavalry, and vice versa with fire. (And at late tech levels, NOTHING compares to the fire and shockpower of cannon)
CHARGEEEE!Shahed said:
To elaborate: Early in the game: Use large amounts of cavalry with the most shocking leader you can recruit in charge, and if you have several cavalry types available, use the most shocking one - if it is a choice between shocking on offense or on defense, go for offense.
Cavalry armies led by cavalry geniuses are incredibly deadly in the early-to-mid game and the major concern is managing attrition and the necessity for separate infantry armies to assault.
Last edited:
everybody is going: "you had only 1 in shock value and the other had 5? no wonder you got massacred, haha!!!"
...my point is that these values are far to powerful!!! I have a feeling that for every point of value a general gaines he becomes 10 times as good as he was before!
if it climbed by 5 % for every point then ok...but if you have a general worth 1 point in shock and put him up against a general with 4 or 5 points...you get friggin bunker hill every time! NOT COOL!!!!!!
...my point is that these values are far to powerful!!! I have a feeling that for every point of value a general gaines he becomes 10 times as good as he was before!
if it climbed by 5 % for every point then ok...but if you have a general worth 1 point in shock and put him up against a general with 4 or 5 points...you get friggin bunker hill every time! NOT COOL!!!!!!
I dont know what to say other then next time dont go to war with a bad general, especially against an opponent that has a good king/general.
You still havent answered the biggest question though, how much cavalry did you have compared to him? This is a huge factor.
Its pretty simple and the game is broken is this department, an army without good leadership is useless.
So now you know why you lost, but you think its something wrong with the game instead of your strategy or your initial decision to DOW.
And you wonder why people are being sceptical?
You still havent answered the biggest question though, how much cavalry did you have compared to him? This is a huge factor.
Its pretty simple and the game is broken is this department, an army without good leadership is useless.
So now you know why you lost, but you think its something wrong with the game instead of your strategy or your initial decision to DOW.
And you wonder why people are being sceptical?
I had just as much cavalry as he had. sometimes a little more, but never less than him. sorry I didnt answer this earlier :wacko: