Military History Experts: How were early modern wars fought, and how to model it?

[lordboy54]

A few basic problems which we can explore in more detail:

• Finances. Everyone simply has more money in the game than Early Modern governments tended to in reality. It would be unreasonable to expect Paradox to represent the full depth and breadth of differences in taxation and spending between different states, but suffice it to say that both armies and navies don't cost enough. This is tricky though, because unless it's designed well it could be less fun to have to deal with cost rather than more. One potential way to deal with it would be to go the 'Sweden' route and let armies loot territory they're in in exchange for costing less maintenance - bellum se ipsum alet.
  
• The state army is the only army. Right now the only way to have an army is to utilize state resources, state money, and state manpower. If your country runs out of those, you cannot fight. This isn't historical. Despite the centralization of power in the Early Modern Era, non-state actors could still produce military forces of immense strength (and lots of money, too!). This ties into the issue above. Think of Poland-Lithuania during the Deluge: the Commonwealth's army was easily defeated in 1655/6 and almost the entire country was overrun by Sweden, Russia, and the Cossack State, yet before too long they were able to recover. Sweden's policy of making war pay for itself, its soldiers' disrespect for Catholicism, and failure to appease the Polish nobility led to mass insurrections in the countryside as the magnates used their large retinues and great wealth to combat the Swedish occupation, eventually enabling the king to return from exile. This isn't really covered by the game's 'rebels'.
  
• The AI and peace. Thanks to Jomini for bringing up this issue: The AI's reluctance to make a quick peace, both when losing and winning, results in wars of total occupation occurring very frequently because the AI is reluctant to give up provinces until it's had much of the country occupied. By that time it is usually weak enough that it is desirable to occupy even more in order to get a greater peace deal, and so the spiral continues. I'm sure he can explain it more eloquently than I can.
  
• The relationship between fortresses and field armies. I started a thread a while ago on this topic, and it's which I think is particularly important. I don't still hold to 100% of the views I put forth in the linked thread, but most of them are still relevant. Mainly, that the current system in which armies have no means at all to avoid enemy armies if they can't get out of a province in time is unrealistic to an extreme degree, and that letting them garrison fortresses is one possible solution to that problem (although not a particularly historical one, but I see few better alternatives). Also, that fortresses should have a means to fight back against besieging armies. Currently they're completely passive during sieges, which could do with changing. Siege warfare in general needs to have more depth. For most of the time period it was siege warfare, rather than field battles, which made up the bulk of major military activity. For the period of warfare between Austrian Habsburgs and Ottomans between 1526 and 1683 there were countless sieges and raids launched back and forth, and a whopping two major battles, Mezőkeresztes in 1596 and Szentgotthárd in 1664. In the game battles are ahistorically ubiquitous.

And finally, the one simple change I would make to the military system which I post in every thread like this and which annoys me every time I play: stop giving defensive bonuses to besieging armies!

Unless the game is a perfect copy of what happened in real history, and following that timeline step by step, no matter what happens, no matter what the devs do, you'll always be able to find examples where their systems used in EU4 aren't sufficent/can't properly emulate what you want. This is the nature of a game, and it's suprising to see so many people confused by it. After all, EU4 isn't a history simulator, but a just a game with historical elements to it.

 

[Lakedaimon]

Unless the game is a perfect copy of what happened in real history, and following that timeline step by step, no matter what happens, no matter what the devs do, you'll always be able to find examples where their systems used in EU4 aren't sufficent/can't properly emulate what you want. This is the nature of a game, and it's suprising to see so many people confused by it. After all, EU4 isn't a history simulator, but a just a game with historical elements to it.

I think you're confused about what we are talking about. We are all aware that it is a game with historical elements to it, what we are talking about is adding MORE historical elements. So we would go from a game with historical elements to a game with slightly more historical element. I don't see how your arguments say anything against trying to improve warfare to better model the warfare of the time.

There is no objective optimum of historical elements added, like changing the combat mechanics magically transforms it into a history simulator.

 

[lordboy54]

I think you're confused about what we are talking about. We are all aware that it is a game with historical elements to it, what we are talking about is adding MORE historical elements. So we would go from a game with historical elements to a game with slightly more historical element. I don't see how your arguments say anything against trying to improve warfare to better model the warfare of the time.

There is no objective optimum of historical elements added, like changing the combat mechanics magically transforms it into a history simulator.

Okay, I just think that the suggestions being made/some of the complaints about the game are a bit extreme, and sounded to me like people want a history simulator rather than understanding that it is a game with various major abstractions.

 

[Lakedaimon]

Okay, I just think that the suggestions being made/some of the complaints about the game are a bit extreme, and sounded to me like people want a history simulator rather than understanding that it is a game with various major abstractions.

That doesn't mean it hurts to discuss the validity of these abstractions and the impact they have on both gameplay and historical accuracy.

 

[Beagá]

I´m much more bothered by the likes of Prussia getting uberdiscipline, just by existing and evolving in tech, than anything else said here so far.

 

[Viking]

A few basic problems which we can explore in more detail:


Finances. Everyone simply has more money in the game than Early Modern governments tended to in reality. It would be unreasonable to expect Paradox to represent the full depth and breadth of differences in taxation and spending between different states, but suffice it to say that both armies and navies don't cost enough. This is tricky though, because unless it's designed well it could be less fun to have to deal with cost rather than more. One potential way to deal with it would be to go the 'Sweden' route and let armies loot territory they're in in exchange for costing less maintenance - bellum se ipsum alet.

This is actually the case, it's not in any ledger or screen, but you do make money from pillaging. Not enough to pay the mercs but more than nothing.

The state army is the only army. Right now the only way to have an army is to utilize state resources, state money, and state manpower. If your country runs out of those, you cannot fight. This isn't historical. Despite the centralization of power in the Early Modern Era, non-state actors could still produce military forces of immense strength (and lots of money, too!). This ties into the issue above. Think of Poland-Lithuania during the Deluge: the Commonwealth's army was easily defeated in 1655/6 and almost the entire country was overrun by Sweden, Russia, and the Cossack State, yet before too long they were able to recover. Sweden's policy of making war pay for itself, its soldiers' disrespect for Catholicism, and failure to appease the Polish nobility led to mass insurrections in the countryside as the magnates used their large retinues and great wealth to combat the Swedish occupation, eventually enabling the king to return from exile. This isn't really covered by the game's 'rebels'.

Well, the game's rebels do accomplish this. However, blowing manpower does lead to an inability to resist, especially for smaller countries. TBH, in the period of this game only once did the issue of manpower enter into anybody's equations of battle, that was in 1814 and 1815 when napeoleon started calling younger and older classes to the draft. Countries which could fund it could call up repeated armies again and again and again. It's a nice idea to consider, but it didn't really have any effects in this period and money was the true bottleneck. (I agree with the sentiments above).

The AI and peace. Thanks to Jomini for bringing up this issue: The AI's reluctance to make a quick peace, both when losing and winning, results in wars of total occupation occurring very frequently because the AI is reluctant to give up provinces until it's had much of the country occupied. By that time it is usually weak enough that it is desirable to occupy even more in order to get a greater peace deal, and so the spiral continues. I'm sure he can explain it more eloquently than I can.

It's a steamroller effect coupled with the manpower, recruitment and fortification issue. A wipe is immediately followed by a carpet siege (never happened historically and would have been suicidal for anybody attempting it). With no army or war capacity the ai seeks greater concessions. Teh defender still seeing little war score refuses the demands, then, while the war target ticks and towns get sieged the war capacity falls even further leading to harsher demands, but at some point the war score stops growing, leading to an inability to make peace.. until call to peace happens, the invader is out of manpower and a white peace is offered and accepted.

The relationship between fortresses and field armies. I started a thread a while ago on this topic, and it's which I think is particularly important. I don't still hold to 100% of the views I put forth in the linked thread, but most of them are still relevant. Mainly, that the current system in which armies have no means at all to avoid enemy armies if they can't get out of a province in time is unrealistic to an extreme degree, and that letting them garrison fortresses is one possible solution to that problem (although not a particularly historical one, but I see few better alternatives). Also, that fortresses should have a means to fight back against besieging armies. Currently they're completely passive during sieges, which could do with changing. Siege warfare in general needs to have more depth. For most of the time period it was siege warfare, rather than field battles, which made up the bulk of major military activity. For the period of warfare between Austrian Habsburgs and Ottomans between 1526 and 1683 there were countless sieges and raids launched back and forth, and a whopping two major battles, Mezőkeresztes in 1596 and Szentgotthárd in 1664. In the game battles are ahistorically ubiquitous.
[/LIST]

And finally, the one simple change I would make to the military system which I post in every thread like this and which annoys me every time I play: stop giving defensive bonuses to besieging armies!

Paradox have considered not only giving percentage chances for terrain to the defender but adding a second calculation that decides who is defender, they choose not to implement it. Right now the attacker gets all the defensive bonuses.

 

[Chamboozer]

TBH, in the period of this game only once did the issue of manpower enter into anybody's equations of battle, that was in 1814 and 1815 when napeoleon started calling younger and older classes to the draft. Countries which could fund it could call up repeated armies again and again and again. It's a nice idea to consider, but it didn't really have any effects in this period and money was the true bottleneck. (I agree with the sentiments above).

Yes, I've thought about this. I think that it might be better if manpower were changed to mean 'skilled manpower' so you can always call up cheap infantry of very low quality if you need it, so long as there is money. That would help fix the problem of the death-spiral some countries get into whereby losing a war results in lost manpower, which results in rebels, which results in defeats at the hands of the rebels, which results in even more lost manpower, and so on forever. It would also allow the game to represent the giant armies which tiny countries could generate from time to time, such as Moldavia under Stefan the Great. These forces would diminish in usefulness over the course of the game as armies built by 'skilled manpower' accumulate discipline, morale, and other bonuses.

 

[highsis]

Strategies in 15th century isn't equal to strategies in 18th century.

That said, I don't like the current system either. You don't fight 30 battles and take 10~20 fortresses to win a war in real life. Each battle should count much more and you shouldn't need to break fortress(as long as you lay siege) to gain concession. Attrition should be much severe, your vision lot more restrictive, instant response of your army stacks delayed.

 

[FearTheAmish]

Most armies of the time were made up of mercenary forces. These forces were usually not paid by the Government but via looting (besides a one time hiring fee and a stipend for the officers). Upkeep for these Companies were paid for by their commander and not the government. Recruitment was done by when an area during a war was "foraged" (short for plundered looted and raped). They would execute any males of an age that couldn't fight including any children. Women would become camp followers (whores, cooks, washerwomen) and males of combat age were "recruited". Financially these companies worked on a tier system. Every officer would receive a portion of what was looted by the soldiers and this was used for upkeep of the forces. This is mostly the reason why the 30 years war was such a horrendous war, population loss figures for central Germany is estimated as high as 75% in some places because of this system.

Also to those of you talking about "open field" battles they were EXTREMELY rare During the 30 years war there are only really 4-5 major battles recorded. It was all about siege warfare during this time period which worked better for mercenaries because it was a low risk investment (well besides the diseases and elements).