Most effective army compostion?

[Pj Fallon]

So I read the wiki (hasn't been updated in ages) army composition should be 10 inf to five cav with some art for sieging and later on for combat but reduce the cav numbers as time goes on.

But DDR jake seems to use minimal cav in his treibzond map painting videos .........and hes basically godlike at this game.

So Im just wondering what is the consensus on army composition?

 

[Sunspawn]

2-4 cav at most unless you're a horde, muslim tech or Poland (2/4 gives you just enough to protect your front line from flanking), combat width * 1.5 (talking ideally here) infantry and up to combat width artillery, if you can afford it.

 

[DanubianCossak]

2-4 cav, everything else infantry.

When arty becomes alive, add 2 or 4 arties.

After third or fourth arty upgrade, add more.

After you can field 40+ units in your provinces, start adding more arties up to like 40% of your infantry.

Ideally youd want 50-50% inf / arty, but in practice, infantry will die out, so you always want to have some in reserve that can replace the damaged ones in the first line, so that arties dont get slaughtered.

Note that this applies to civilized tech groups, if you play as hordes and stuff things may be different, dunno, dont play that stuff. I do however know that their cavalry is better so that may change things.

But as western or eastern tech group having too much cavalry is not that great. It dishes out damage, but a.) its expensive b.) it will take damage (and damaged cavalry means a lot of money spent on reinforcing it) and c.) infantry heavy armies will simply survive a lot longer in big battles. Dont get too heavy on arties before they get good.

 

[gronak]

I usually use the ratio template 5:3:1... So it should be 5:2:2? I never play as hordes.

 

[SandroTLK]

In general, I find cavalry to be pretty weak in this game outside of flanking, so I almost always run with only ~4 cav per army (unless, of course, playing hordes/muslims/Poland who get super buffs to cav). Early game, the troops that do the fighting are the infantry. Late game, cannons are what cause the most damage. Most of the time you'll spend really worrying about army composition is the late game, and the ideal comp late game is full (or near full) combat width of artillery, about 1.5x combat width worth of infantry, and about 4 cav for flanking. The extra infantry are spare bodies for when your front line takes casualties so that your cannons in the back remain protected.

I usually use the ratio template 5:3:1... So it should be 5:2:2? I never play as hordes.

These are terrible compositions. What you want is ~4 cavalry total, and then a 3:2 ratio of infantry:cannons, setting the "2" in that ratio equal to your combat width. To find your combat width, it's listed on the tech page as one of the bonuses you get with increasing technology (I forget the exact placement, you'll have to hover over all those symbols on the right side of the tech page until you find the right tooltip). However, the number listed is not your actual combat width, just the extra combat width you get from technology; every country starts with a base combat width of 15, so to get the real number you have to add 15 to the number from the tech page tooltip. It's overly complicated and non-intuitive, I know, which makes it par for the course for a Paradox game. Note: if you ever do play hordes, they can run with 100% cav armies (and they get huge buffs to cav combat too), so it's best to run cav only until gunpowder, in which case the 3:2 ratio applies again, except this time as cav:cannons.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Most effective comp is to fill every possible slot that can attack in both front row and back, and front your stronger units if you have the funds.

If you don't know what the above means, the wiki will be more useful than a forum question. Set comps are utter nonsense, a good way to not-think your way into inefficient fighting. There's a reason Jake went with minimal cavalry in his situation despite other comps being theoretically slightly more damaging, and if you want to be decent at this game that reason should be more important to you than an "ideal comp". The fact that you asked the latter is discouraging.

 

[Thravid]

I'm an extreme supporter of Cavalry. It has the biggest Shock value early to mid game. Later on it's a good flanking unit and it's good against cannons, which the AI sometimes loves to spam. My composition is NOT the most efficient, but it is ONE of the most powerful, honestly.

6-2-3. 1/3 of infantry number should be cavalry. 1/2 of infantry number should be cannons.

Some people like to add more infantry for the frontlines, some like to put more cannons, it really depends on what ideas you take, either you are going to defensive(if defensive battles are your main thing, then absolutely add cannons) or offensive (cavalry is optimal for offensives).

 

[WSnova]

Depends on what tech group and when in the game you are.

Early on you want more cavalry because its superior to infantry and shock is more important early game. But Western Cavalry sucks in the beggining.

But usually its enough infantry to fill your combat width and then the same number or cannons. Add in a few cav to flank and you´re done. The important thing is filling your backrow with artillery when you can.

 

[ywxiao]

Western cavalry is weak early game, until tech 10 I suggest 4:1 ratio or higher. This of course depends on your enemies. You want just enough troops to win your foreseeable wars, and that's where ddrjake excels. He knows who his potential enemies and allies are, so he can save on military cost.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Disagree with me all you want, but ratios don't win wars. Knowing the statistics of your units, current combat multipliers, and the limitations of your income for army vs advisors wins wars and progress.

Looking for canned "what ratio should I use" answers without thinking for oneself is actively pursuing mediocrity. People are free to do that of course, but it's not an ideal approach in a strategy title.

Your "ideal ratio" is going to look pretty different between Venice, Poland, Kazan, and Ming, and will look different for each in 1500 vs 1750.

Asking "what is the consensus best comp" rather than "why did Jake choose his comp in his situation" is a wrong-question. If you're playing a strategy title, I recommend first learning the mechanics, then using actual strategy.

 

[ChildeR]

Most effective comp is to fill every possible slot that can attack in both front row and back, and front your stronger units if you have the funds.

Agreed.

If you have the money it is best to have a full back row of artillery and the front row divided between infantry and cavalry (if better) so that you do not go over your support ratio. There's nothing more to it, that simply ensures you do as much damage as you can. (If the enemy has less than full width, some of your units may be left out.)

In reality, of course, you need to care about money too, and may not be able to afford full artillery and cavalry for all armies. In that case you need to consider how much you value money vs. manpower, and what your modifiers are. A pre-set template can act as a guideline, but will not be optimal.

 

[AwesomeKeith]

I use a standardized stack of 20k, with 10k Inf, 5k Cav, 5k Arty. Don't know if it's the best but it works like a charm, for the first two or three centuries at least, that's when I've tested it.

 

[AP85]

Some rough guidelines:

Early game - 4:1
Mid-game - 5:2:2
Late-game: 5:2:5 with artillery = to combat width

My end-game standard army template is usually 20:5:20 when my supply limit can handle it. Having said that, late-game standing armies are for deterrence and reinforcement, with mercs doing the dirty work.

 

[Kraal Rokviente]

If you want to know what composition to use you first need to know what the enemy is good at. If you fight against Poland in the early years you will fail massively with a 8-2 composition. Most western states can be handled with that composition but eastern states for example will smash you during shock as they have more cav and deal more damage in that time. Around 1700 the stats changes and Fire will become more important for fights than Shock phases.
When forts can be upgraded to level 4 you should field 25 arty in an sieging army to siege effective.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you want to know what composition to use you first need to know what the enemy is good at. If you fight against Poland in the early years you will fail massively with a 8-2 composition. Most western states can be handled with that composition but eastern states for example will smash you during shock as they have more cav and deal more damage in that time. Around 1700 the stats changes and Fire will become more important for fights than Shock phases.
When forts can be upgraded to level 4 you should field 25 arty in an sieging army to siege effective.

Funny, I generally consider fully occupying Poland to tank its prestige/break the union to be something other than "failing massively", and I've done that with Muscovy, Novgorod, Livonian Order, Riga, Kazan, Golden Horde, and Theodoro. And yes, in at least some runs as those hordes I've wound up using cavalry sparingly to conserve money, instead taking advantage of "no reinforce cost" which also applies on merc infantry and is a terrifying ability.

In each case, if I had more than 2 cavalry total, it wasn't by much (probably got a few off annexed vassals, couple extra on hordes, etc).

But sure, bust out the cookie cutter and start slamming it down, then maybe in a week we'll see another thread about how OP the PLC is when someone tries to fight them with some "5:3:1 ratio" and winds up sub-combat width or out of manpower trying to pay for the extra cav/cannon rather than merc infantry .

There is no substitute for understanding the mechanics.

 

[Zardnaar]

What do you guys think for Indian nations? I use around 30 to 50% cav early on. Ypu get shock 3 cav atil tech 10.

And arty i s good mil tech 16?

 

[DKinator]

What do you guys think for Indian nations? I use around 30 to 50% cav early on. Ypu get shock 3 cav atil tech 10.

And arty i s good mil tech 16?

Indian units are unique in that they get a fire pip for their infantry before everyone else. The actual fire modifier is still low, but it gives an extra oomph to their infantry during the fire phase while all the other techs are lashing at each other with wet noodles (granted, spiked and barbed noodles, but still very wet). I couldn't tell you just how valuable that is as I don't play in India very often, but it's something to consider even if the fire modifiers are low. At the very least, it means rolling a 6/0 general early isn't a full-on punch to the face and more just a hearty slap.

 

[Searry]

The back row should be all artillery except for a few cavs, something like 2-4 per army. So hypothetically a good army is: as much as you can get inf, 2cav, full combat width of art. At least this is how things are in multiplayer where you have to optimize everything.

 

[elmarcel]

If money is no problem, combat width infantry in the front, combat width in the back.
Early in the game, but rich: full cav in the front, full art in the back
Sane early in the game ( < miltech 12): 2-4 cav in the front, infantry. Artillery only for sieging (one or two in the entire army)

 

[Todenpuhuja]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/mod-army-composition-test-environment.890469/