You can of course, already rename your armies in most paradox games. See no reason why EU3 should be any different.
More then one unit type please!
- Thread starter Gunny123
- 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.
You can of course, already rename your armies in most paradox games. See no reason why EU3 should be any different.
Arilou said:
French army in Ceriñola (1503) was 39.800 .
In the latter italian wars the armies were +/- this size, save the big final battles in the 50´s, in wich were bigger, IIRC.
So sizes of armies in EU2 are historicaly true? I mean, making them ten times smaller will be ahistorical and not realistic?Amadís de Gaula said:
KaRei said:
Ten times smaller might be a bit too much, but they certainly need a reduction in size.
And about types of armies in the era, if that gives you any idea, "Tercios" originaly described an army of:
- 1/3 "rodeleros": spades and small fireweapons; used for close combat and the key to success. Extremely well trained.
- 1/3 "piqueros" (pikes): to protect calvary, formed in the front of the square, leaving spaces for the rodeleros when reaching the enemy.
- 1/3 "mosqueteros (IIRC)": heavy fireweapons. Specialization and heavy use of these soldiers was first inrroduced by El Gran Capitán after Seminara battle.
A Tercio had also units of light and heavy artillery.
- 1/3 "rodeleros": spades and small fireweapons; used for close combat and the key to success. Extremely well trained.
- 1/3 "piqueros" (pikes): to protect calvary, formed in the front of the square, leaving spaces for the rodeleros when reaching the enemy.
- 1/3 "mosqueteros (IIRC)": heavy fireweapons. Specialization and heavy use of these soldiers was first inrroduced by El Gran Capitán after Seminara battle.
A Tercio had also units of light and heavy artillery.
KaRei said:
Well, Italian wars were massive wars; the french really wanted Italy. And fielded massive armies from the start.
But the spanish army in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd italian wars was of 13.000 at its peak. More men were needed when the Pope, nothern Italy loyalty was disputed. IIRC in Biccoca the number of fench deaths was 23.000, (I´ll check it), and both armies were +/- the same.
In fact in Ceriñola El Gran Capitán had 12.800 men.
So if something around 35K was the largest army (in EU2 it is something around 100K) then reducing it 3times should be correct.Arilou said:
KaRei said:
Put it +/- 50.000, that was +/- the armies in the final stages of the italian wars.
Oh, sorry, I was speaking about real life.
About armies, the cause of the 1576 bankrupcy were the bills of the 80.000 men standing army Spain fielded in Flandres. Rebel armies were bigger, BTW.
So "in game" (if you follow reality) a 50.000 army should be VERY costly (Carlos V despperately asked Cortes for money to pay this army size in the Italian wars in the 20´s), and one of 80.000 the total ruin for the player.
About armies, the cause of the 1576 bankrupcy were the bills of the 80.000 men standing army Spain fielded in Flandres. Rebel armies were bigger, BTW.
So "in game" (if you follow reality) a 50.000 army should be VERY costly (Carlos V despperately asked Cortes for money to pay this army size in the Italian wars in the 20´s), and one of 80.000 the total ruin for the player.
It should be pointed out that the army-size literally exploded during the latey 1500's/1600's. I believe the spanish standing army doubled or tripled it's size during the period.
Arilou said:
You´re right, it multiplied its size by 7, in fact.
But paging books (basically the ·"Enciclopedy of Military Art") as I´m now to contribute, 50.000 should be the "limit" for not ruining your country.
France could field those armies as it was rich, with steady income (and the kings heavily complained about that), so as the Otomans. Spain had to do "miracles" to stand against them but finally bankrupted.
Last edited:
That would be a standing army "in the field" so to speak? Because nations could, and did, field larger amounts of soldiers, but then they usually divided them up into smaller corps (simply because any larger than 50,000 or so was impossible to support....)
Arilou said:
Yes, that would be the main army, operating in a war.
Then the "irregulars" guarded coasts, etc. (but were */- free).
And then the garrisons (maximum of 2.000 soldiers in case of certain battle).
I would say 15.000 should be added then. So it gives a maximum of 65.000 (but a real one, nobody could stand this sizes continuosly).
Arilou said:
Thats devided around Italy, Spain and Flanders. Your talking of armies per province of around 20k-30k.
Thats 6 tercio, 3 Heavy and 1 light cavalry regiments and 3 mercenary bands if of course you used the unit system
Rework battle phases in case of more unit types - extraction for Vote Thread
This is an extraction of ideas from the current discussion thread. These ideas are from various people from the thread. I only merge them into one post.
If more types of units get into game, it could need a system where certain units fight during each phase instead of the simple shock and fire phases as it was in EU2.
In should looks like this:
1. Maneuver Phase - This is just the armies lining up for battle, it gives some time for troops to gather if they are slightly behind in the movement.
2. Advance - Archers and horse archers fire, artillery fire
3. Gunfire - Infantry with muskets fire
4. Skirmish - All types of archers and light infantry and light cavalry
5. Front - All types attack but archers fire values are halved
6. Flank - Same as above
7. Someone retreats or is destroyed.
This process loops through steps 2 - 6 until someone is defeated.
This system would allow historical possibility armies based on lightly armed skirmishing troops to defeat heavily armoured knight based forces in the opening phases. But it also allows the possibility of those light forces not being decisive and then being crushed by the heavy troops in the later phases.
This is an extraction of ideas from the current discussion thread. These ideas are from various people from the thread. I only merge them into one post.
If more types of units get into game, it could need a system where certain units fight during each phase instead of the simple shock and fire phases as it was in EU2.
In should looks like this:
1. Maneuver Phase - This is just the armies lining up for battle, it gives some time for troops to gather if they are slightly behind in the movement.
2. Advance - Archers and horse archers fire, artillery fire
3. Gunfire - Infantry with muskets fire
4. Skirmish - All types of archers and light infantry and light cavalry
5. Front - All types attack but archers fire values are halved
6. Flank - Same as above
7. Someone retreats or is destroyed.
This process loops through steps 2 - 6 until someone is defeated.
This system would allow historical possibility armies based on lightly armed skirmishing troops to defeat heavily armoured knight based forces in the opening phases. But it also allows the possibility of those light forces not being decisive and then being crushed by the heavy troops in the later phases.
Last edited:
Advance should include cannon fire, also there should be a phase right before skirmish but after advance for Fire phase when generals usually ordered their infantry to fire all their muskets.
Then there would be 2 phases with only fire. Couldn't the cannon fire be a separate phase before advance? Long range bombardment for example? And the advance remain?Mad King James said:
Early cannon and a good bow have about the same effective range, though later era field artillery could probably fire during the menouver phase as well. Rifles could fire in the archer phase as well.
A good musket volley should be devastating.
A good musket volley should be devastating.