loose 5000 and kill 50???

[Piggy]

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:

Thanks,

Then in this case it comes down to his very good general with 5 shock against your poor general @ 1 shock. A 5 shock general is damn good IMO.

So, if all things being equal you should need 5 times more cavalry then he had in order to come out even or win, but you probably would lose due to morale before you beat him anyway.

Add in terrain factors on top of this.

Leadership is key.

 

[Erlend]

sure leadership is the key, I get that...but what I don't get is their INSANE skill!

 

[Piggy]

Well they're not all that good, you just got unlucky in that case I think.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

sure leadership is the key, I get that...but what I don't get is their INSANE skill!

A general made with 100% army tradition will have at least shock 5. Most likely, shock 6.

 

[Darktooth]

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.

I wasn't aware of that - but don't you think that this is making those numbers a bit useless for the player? I've checked the land tech descriptions ind the commons\technologies folder. I was suprised that infantry really is useless. The fire value is non existant in the first years while the shock value of cavalry is so high that building anything different is stupid.

To all those people saying that the mechanics work fine: Do you really think that in the 16th century wars have been won by cavalry-only armies and that only 1% were killed by musket fire?
But that isn't the only problem. When I watched the battles, I came to the conclusion that the dice roll is more important than your tech level even when you are 100 years more advanced than your enemy.
Do you really want to tell me that everything is fine and balanced?

Maybe I'm bitching around a bit but please look at the example I gave some posts before - I really tried different stratgies, troop compositions and so on. Just tell me what I have to do to win. If the answer is "huge cavalry-armies" then there is something wrong with balancing.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

I wasn't aware of that - but don't you think that this is making those numbers a bit useless for the player? I've checked the land tech descriptions ind the commons\technologies folder. I was suprised that infantry really is useless. The fire value is non existant in the first years while the shock value of cavalry is so high that building anything different is stupid.

To all those people saying that the mechanics work fine: Do you really think that in the 16th century wars have been won by cavalry-only armies and that only 1% were killed by musket fire?
But that isn't the only problem. When I watched the battles, I came to the conclusion that the dice roll is more important than your tech level even when you are 100 years more advanced than your enemy.
Do you really want to tell me that everything is fine and balanced?

Maybe I'm bitching around a bit but please look at the example I gave some posts before - I really tried different stratgies, troop compositions and so on. Just tell me what I have to do to win. If the answer is "huge cavalry-armies" then there is something wrong with balancing.

Yeap...I agree. Cavalry in old armies was an efficient tool, changed battles, but the real dying happened by the foot soldiers. Cavalry mostly was a razor shaving off the sides of armies and turning flanks(and making enemies rout), not heaping up corpses. If things went pear-shaped, they were the first ones to tuck their tail and run off. Having everyone riding around with squadrons of cavalry isnt realistic but to do anything else would be silly. Simply put, cavalries have a hard time flanking without an infantry of their own to engage the enemy.

Ive had wars where a stray 2000 cavalry unit gets loose and rips holes into my seiging armies even armies consisting of 10000 men(and ~1500 being cav). Frederick the Great was perhaps the best (and certainly the most willing) general in history to attempt to outflank a more numerous enemy, and although numbers are spotty, he rarely would heap up an enemy body count more than twice as large as his. Making the leap to 30-40x (WHILE BEING OUTNUMBERED 5 TO 1) is something different entirely.

We can look back on "battles" like Frankenhausen where 8000 peasants faced 8000 professional soldiers and took 5000 losses and killing maybe a dozen of the soldiers attacking them, but the peasants were in retreat from the start of the battle really. My army of 10,000(1500 being cav) with full morale getting routed by 2000 arent a bunch of peasants. They are a mercenary band of soldiers with equipment and at least some partial amount of training(The regiments had been commissioned a decade ago)....not peasants armed with mud and a cloth tunic. Why are they taking 3000 losses, inflicting 130, and getting driven out of the province? I really dont recall this happening in EU2 in the versions I played. I know cav in the early years were strong and I liked that, but infantry wasnt as useless as it seems to be now. As things stand right now, you are better off not having a single foot soldier. Wouldnt a combined arms bonus be in order here?

 

[Erlend]

I totally agree with the last to posts here. battles should be decided by more than just dice rolls, like for example combined arms bonus. this would make the game more interesting!

it's far too easy to win wars if you can just build 10 000 cavalry and have them slaughter the enemy army before you move the infantry in to siege the settlements. right now infantry die much too easy and it creates a problem with the rienforcements.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I wasn't aware of that - but don't you think that this is making those numbers a bit useless for the player?

I disagree on the uselessness part since they still show how regiments within one type perform compared to each other - i.e. they allow you to choose the type of infantry you prefer, the type of cavalry you prefer - they just don't give you the information to choose between infantry and cavalry, but that was never what the regimental types were about.

I would, however, much prefer that the combat values depending on techlevel were also visible (in a tooltip, say) precisely because the differentiation between the base unit effectiveness and regimental bonuses is non-obvious to the player in-game and anybody coming in with a standard "compare units" mentality who doesn't distinguish between infantry and cavalry except as different combat stats is likely to make that perfectly natural mistake.

I was a bit surprised that you made that mistake as you describe yourself as an EU2 veteran and the infantry/cavalry/artillery setup in EU3 with base values by techlevel works exactly the same in EU3 as in EU2 (indeed, the values are remarkably similar ), with the same result: cavalry dominates the early game.

The main issue (as far as I'm concerned) is that the absolute cavalry dominance lasts for too long at current. All cavalry armies led by shock leaders remains a winning tactic for perhaps 50-75 years too long.

I've checked the land tech descriptions ind the commons\technologies folder. I was suprised that infantry really is useless. The fire value is non existant in the first years while the shock value of cavalry is so high that building anything different is stupid.

In the early game, infantry is for assaulting and nothing else except absorbing casualties if you are going for an attritional approach against a low-manpower cavalry builder and have a huge manpower.... which does not happen all that often.

 

[Darktooth]

When I played EU2 going for cavalry was'nt a no-brainer. Infantry had its uses, especially in mountains and forests. EU3 only has terrain modifiers for the whole army. This was different in EU2 - or did I understand it wrong?

And I'm still saying that these numbers are useless because the player doesn't get the information of the base values of his units. When there is a cavalry type with "fire 2" and one with "fire 1" I assume that the first one is twice as good in firing. But the fact is, they don't do any fire damage at all because their base value is 0 - that is it what makes these numbers missleading (maybe useless is a bit harsh, but you still have to have the information about the base values, which you don't get by reading the manual to make them usefull).

My conclusion is, cavalry is too strong for this time periode. It should be more expensive. That way you can't build that much cavalry. And they should cost more manpower aas it did historically. You don't get new knights as easily as a new footman. I know that cavalry regiments are more expensive, but I say they are not expensive enough.

 

[Erlend]

so, reading the final posts there seems to be an agreement on this:

1. the generals in the game are sometimes overpowered.

2. cavalry is also overpowered, too cheap, and dominate the battlefield for far too long into the game.

I know that not everyone "agrees" on this but if there is any proof of the system beeing bugged or something it's our job to tell paradox. cavalry and it's importance on the battlefield was very close to being perfect in EUII...so all I need is a few adjustements in this game (possibly the generals too) and I would be the happiest man on the planet!!! :rofl:

 

[Von Thoma]

so, reading the final posts there seems to be an agreement on this:

1. the generals in the game are sometimes overpowered.

2. cavalry is also overpowered, too cheap, and dominate the battlefield for far too long into the game.

I know that not everyone "agrees" on this but if there is any proof of the system beeing bugged or something it's our job to tell paradox. cavalry and it's importance on the battlefield was very close to being perfect in EUII...so all I need is a few adjustements in this game (possibly the generals too) and I would be the happiest man on the planet!!! :rofl:

I fully agree ....

The Generals are too powerful ... really they are horrible they even compensate 10 Land Tech Levels or more

Cavalary also too powerful

and my observation is:

Artillery near worthless even against fortifications
Wrong Troop combinations are not punished (Are the huns back ?

My conclusion:
sole cav armies with teleporting general (your best one is always there where the battle is)
Behind infantry armies, for capturing the forts (even no art needed)

with that I already own 50% of Europe as Austria

Hope that will be changed (Generals, Cavalary reduced and best a big bonus for troop combinations)

 

[Slim Jim]

I´m totaly with Erlend on this one. Im sure its just a bug in the game that paradox will fix in the next patch. I dont understand what you guys are talking about, there is no way these killstats are realistic. a battle between for example Spain and Portugal in the 16th century where a massacre for both sides. Of course leaders play a significant role, but the stats the game gives? eum...no. I get like 5000 killed and he gets 150...thats VIETNAM!!
So get over yourselfs, we all know there are more then just numbers in war, but not like this.

 

[unmerged(65884)]

I have to agree the combat system is completely out of balance. I am having results much like what others have suggested. With land tech 12 but no tradition I can't compete with landtech 7 countries. My best general has a fire 2 and shock 1. My morale is exellent, in fact maybe too good considering my casualties. My English leader has Military skill of 5 vs. Russia with Military skill of 8. Russia has been sweeping west and south with great success for a long time. I assume they have great generals by now. I began by using only Maurician Infantry because they have the best FSM values of any units available to me. Numbers were usually even or slightly to my advantage in every fight. No terrain advantages listed in the combat window. I got completely demolished. Wasn't even close.

I switched to a mixed force of Maurician Infantry with the only Cavalry I have available "Latin Knights" and the results were about the same. I suffered massive casualties. A few points below:

1. Something is wrong with the numbers. The difference between a value of 1 and 9 is too large. In the example above the only "known" advantage the enemy had was a leader with Military skill 8 vs. mine at 5. This leads me to believe it has everything to do with generals.

2. Having to constantly make war just to have a chance at competing on the battlefield is wrong. The concept makes sense but the advantage in good generals seems to be way too massive. Whats the point in teching up for better units when the General or Monarch is 90% (or more) of the battle? Alternative ways of generating Tradition should be looked into also.

3. Hidden values. I hate hidden values in strategy or wargames. There is no reason why I must dig through files to find hidden values of units because it isn't displayed IN the game. If my Latin Knights are shock 5 then please display these values in the game.

-Grog

 

[unmerged(66258)]

BUG during fights

Dear brothers in arms,

It's just a bug - phase "fire" and "shock" for our troops not work.


In any time for any nation and any troops.


Maybe its biggest bug in whole game.

regards,

 

[Darktooth]

3. Hidden values. I hate hidden values in strategy or wargames. There is no reason why I must dig through files to find hidden values of units because it isn't displayed IN the game. If my Latin Knights are shock 5 then please display these values in the game.
-Grog

Actually, they can be found in the ledger (technology overview). Didn't know that until recently. But they should be available in the regiment selection screen.

I totally agree with your other points, though.

 

[lenny]

1. Something is wrong with the numbers. The difference between a value of 1 and 9 is too large. In the example above the only "known" advantage the enemy had was a leader with Military skill 8 vs. mine at 5. This leads me to believe it has everything to do with generals.

The difference between a 1 and a 9 means making a frontal charge against a well defended position through half a meter of mud, while the enemy’s cavalry routs your reserves.

 

[Slargos]

so, reading the final posts there seems to be an agreement on this:

1. the generals in the game are sometimes overpowered.

2. cavalry is also overpowered, too cheap, and dominate the battlefield for far too long into the game.

I know that not everyone "agrees" on this but if there is any proof of the system beeing bugged or something it's our job to tell paradox. cavalry and it's importance on the battlefield was very close to being perfect in EUII...so all I need is a few adjustements in this game (possibly the generals too) and I would be the happiest man on the planet!!! :rofl:

Syntax error.

Replace "bugged" with "improperly balanced" and I agree with you.

Use bugged, and you look like a fool.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

The difference between a 1 and a 9 means making a frontal charge against a well defended position through half a meter of mud, while the enemy’s cavalry routs your reserves.

its amazing that some people will go to any lengths to explain/justify an error/"WAD" in the game.

Paradox main issue was that it loves to fall to extremes. Although I dont know the exact mechanics but noting how they worked in HOI where slider country settings could create huge issues (like the rate of upgrades that were finally fixed in DD - though the others werent), I wouldnt be suprised if a 1 meant a 10% bonus to rolls/whatever and a 9 meant 90% bonus, which would always lead to such issues as discribed in the situations (which I also experienced in the demo).

 

[lenny]

its amazing that some people will go to any lengths to explain/justify an error/"WAD" in the game.

Paradox main issue was that it loves to fall to extremes. Although I dont know the exact mechanics but noting how they worked in HOI where slider country settings could create huge issues (like the rate of upgrades that were finally fixed in DD - though the others werent), I wouldnt be suprised if a 1 meant a 10% bonus to rolls/whatever and a 9 meant 90% bonus, which would always lead to such issues as discribed in the situations (which I also experienced in the demo).

How combat works is explained in the manual, which I do not have at my disposal atm, so I speculate. On the battlefield, regiments phase each other and I assume damage (moral loss and casualties) is determined by comparing modified roll regiment vs. regiment. So, I assume you compare attacker's roll+general's skill+regiment value+terrain modifiers vs. defender's roll+general's skill+regiment value, and then damage is calculated from there. Now, a 1 vs. a 9 is already bad, now add to that an early infantry regiment facing a cavalry regiment (huge difference in base value) and a good skilled general and that infantry regiment is pretty much done for.

I am not saying everything is perfect, but is not as bad as people here make it seem. IMO, one might think about tweaking the difference between cavalry and infantry base values a bit.
However, the human player has a distinct advantage over the AI: you can retreat at any time! You do not have to wait and watch your army getting slaughtered, just retreat and fight another day.

P.S. Concerning really great leaders:
Sure, they are a major pain in the ass if you happen to not have equally skilled leaders, superior manpower and/or sufficient strategic depth to outmaneuver them. But then, if that is the case it might not have been the smartest idea to go to war in the first place, and it might be better to admit partial defeat and seek peace now before being completely crushed. Then just wait to exercise your revenge when the leader is gone.
It is not like those 6/6/6/6 generals are a common sight.

 

[unmerged(65884)]

P.S. Concerning really great leaders:
Sure, they are a major pain in the ass if you happen to not have equally skilled leaders, superior manpower and/or sufficient strategic depth to outmaneuver them. But then, if that is the case it might not have been the smartest idea to go to war in the first place, and it might be better to admit partial defeat and seek peace now before being completely crushed. Then just wait to exercise your revenge when the leader is gone.
It is not like those 6/6/6/6 generals are a common sight.

So..

A: Constantly fight just to have a chance at competing against a determined enenmy with a good general or two

Or..

B: ????