Most effective army compostion?

[Phoenix VII]

Before Tech 12: I field as much cavalry as my economy can afford (but not to the extent of risking the Insufficient Support penalty). Artillery is used mainly for sieges, not battles.
Tech 12-17: Every army has Combat Width of infantry and artillery+2 cavalry.
Tech 18-29: Combat Width of infantry and artillery+4 cavalry.
Tech 30: Combat Width of infantry and artillery+6 cavalry.

At Tech 12, infantry gets fire pips which cuts cavalry's cost-effectiveness by quite a bit so you only want enough cavalry for flanking afterwards, IMO.

 

[lolada]

DDRJake doesn't really like cavalry - unless he's playing hordes i guess, so don't stop using it because of him : ).

Basically, cavalry is better than infantry somewhere up to level 20. But its like in average only 30% better and it costs whooping 250% more (maintenance is real killer) - ie. totally not cost effective. If you have enough money and you want max firepower you should field cavalry in your army despite what most people say. For example, ddrjake usually play some piss poor nations that can't really afford cavalry early - and later on cavalry is not as strong so he very rarely uses it.

In short ideal composition is:
..................................
ccccxxxxxxxxxcccc

. - artillery
c - cavalry
x - infantry

EARLY - UP TO LEVEL 20:
--------------------------------------------

There should be 20+ units in a row (depending on combat width). At least 4 cavalry, 6-8 is good to have.

Poor people: use only infantry
Not so poor: infantry + at least 4 cavalry, add more if you can (must be below cav to inf ratio, usually 50%); 12-8-0 or 14-6-0 stack is very strong with good shock general
Rich people: also add max artillery: Killer composition is: 14-6-20;

If you can't afford some cavalry units you shouldn't really rush to add artillery - it is weaker in combat. Having at least 1-2 artillery units for sieges is useful tho.
This is composition pre level 20 - when cavalry does more damage than artillery and infantry. And there is very rarely full combat width of units.

LEVEL 20+
---------------

In very stacked fights, late game, level 20+, where you can get 100k vs 100k fights like when killing HRE on super France, best is:

40-0-40 - no cavalry, because no space to flank (full field) and after 20+ levels infantry is equal or better to cavalry in most cases

+ send during tough fights extra stacks of infantry as backup every 10-15 days. You can see ddrjake doing this in some videos. This way you refresh your infantry in front row (so that artillery never gets in front row and it won't get damaged), new units come with full morale, and you should outmorale the oponnent and win.

If you are murdering enemy and fighting 40k vs 20k fights - and not too lazy to micromanage - you should add some cavalry - 6 or 8 depending on flanking range - for max effectivnes. Most people don't bother tho since in this case you win anyway.

 

[Ungerargh]

I've always wondered - do people just not care about attrition? Full combat width on plains at tech 7 is like 24 - obviously no one is rolling with 52k stacks at that time. Late game it's what, 35? Very few provinces can support 70k+. What size stack do you actually move your armies around in?

For me it's 12/4/8. Yes, not the most efficient, but it splits nicely, and if I need to fill in the back row, I just add more stacks.

 

[bbqftw]

if you know how flanking mechanics work you have no need to adhere to a strict composition

 

[Phoenix VII]

I've always wondered - do people just not care about attrition? Full combat width on plains at tech 7 is like 24 - obviously no one is rolling with 52k stacks at that time. Late game it's what, 35? Very few provinces can support 70k+. What size stack do you actually move your armies around in?

I keep armies divided in 2 stacks that support each other or combine to attack larger enemy armies. At Tech 12 (or more likely 13, I don't go heavy with artillery until then) I use 13/1/14 stacks if my economy can sustain the cannons. Late game, I go with 17-20/3/16-20.

 

[Beagá]

if you know how flanking mechanics work you have no need to adhere to a strict composition

This, plus ideal army always depends on the generals you have. 6 fire one kind of army, 6 shock another.

 

[GC13]

I've always wondered - do people just not care about attrition? Full combat width on plains at tech 7 is like 24 - obviously no one is rolling with 52k stacks at that time. Late game it's what, 35? Very few provinces can support 70k+. What size stack do you actually move your armies around in?

Getting dogpiled by an enemy army twice your size will cause much worse attrition than bringing too small an army to the fight.

Like Phoenix I like to break my armies up and have them stay close if there's a nearby threat, but if you're going to launch an attack against an enemy defensive position you need to combine them before the attack.

 

[Stategem161803]

The logistical problem of how to properly deploy an "optimal army composition" is still something I'm toying around with.

Historically, before Napoleon, most armies marched in different groups with artillery in the rear. The game metaphor being that you might have a 32/8/40 army split up into two stacks of 32/8/0 and 0/0/40. The problem with this (not coincidentally the problem Napoleon solved with the corps d'armee system) is that if your artillery stack gets attacked it will be wiped very easily. I have actually tried this and found that I had the same problems people had before Napoleon.

It seems like just about everyone on this forum intuitively uses the corps d'armee system where each individal "army group" contains infantry, cavalry, and artillery.

One general rule I think might be helpful is to try to fill combat width first. For example, a stack of 18/2/0 will beat a stack of 8/2/10 ceteris parabis on a combat width of 20 mainly due to flanking and artillery on the front row. Additionally, consolidating regiments is a very useful tool that you should consider using if you do not currently.

 

[Pj Fallon]

I keep armies divided in 2 stacks that support each other or combine to attack larger enemy armies. At Tech 12 (or more likely 13, I don't go heavy with artillery until then) I use 13/1/14 stacks if my economy can sustain the cannons. Late game, I go with 17-20/3/16-20.

And have a spare inf stack to replace the dead right?

 

[Sunspawn]

And have a spare inf stack to replace the dead right?

Bonus points for using mercenaries as your first front liners.

 

[Atlanteax]

I strive for 24 stacks of 12 inf, 6 cav, 6 artillery.

Can easily be split in half too.

I have a tendency to build 2:1:1 from my core provinces for standing armies.

 

[Stategem161803]

I should note that I do have an general objective optimal army composition for the late game:

A lot more than the enemy

I'm lazy after I'm making +100 ducats/month and have unlimited manpower. I don't really pay much attention. That's only for the early game for me personally.

In the early game, army economics are just as if not more important than "effectiveness." So I think this is the problem that some people have asking about an "optimal composition." Do you really think it's the same for Poland as for Kongo or Byzantium?

 

[Phoenix VII]

And have a spare inf stack to replace the dead right?

If I'm fighting a country of close to equal or greater strength, I'll do that. Against weaker enemies, if the infantry can't recover in 3 months time, I'll just SHIFT+Consolidate, send the weaker stack to the nearest home province to heal up, and have another stack take it's place.

 

[DDRJake]

Disclaimer: These are my own strategies towards composition. Use what works best for you since mine are usually geared towards being economically frugal.

First let's look at the situation before tech 13 for any non-horde nation.

I like to use all infantry with 2 cavalry for flanking. Cavalry cost 250% of what infantry cost so that is why I keep very few of them. They are far, far stronger, but keeping my army light and my wallet fat is important to me.

But if I'm going to fight a battle which I absolutely must win, I prefer to look at my enemy's army and counter it specifically.

Let's say the enemy is a stack of 14INF/6CAV/5ART. This means the front line is going to be 20 units wide. I would want to bring 24 units in this case because (until later technologies) you can effectively flank with up to 4 units, provided at least two of them are cavalry and they are at full strength.

But instead of just bringing 22 infantry and 2 cavalry, I would want to have as much cavalry as possible while avoiding losing "tactics" from having too much. For a western tech country you cannot have more then 1 cavalry for each infantryman. Assuming I were a western power in this hypothetical battle, I would bring 14 infantry and 10 cavalry. Bringing 12 of each would be bad because during the battle your infantry would suffer more losses than your cavalry and as soon as your infantry numbers fell below your cavalry numbers, you would lose some tactics, which means you take greater losses. Like I said, at this stage I would not consider using cannons at all because they are very expensive and before tech 13 I see them as only good for sieging. Some people will disagree with this, but that's what makes the strategies interesting.

The situation before tech 13 for a horde nation is quite straightforward. All cavalry all the time in battle. mercenary infantry are for sieging to save on manpower and the cavalry can loot and protect. In a battle I want to bring 4 more units than the enemy on the frontline to flank. Hiring non-mercenary infantry as a horde is just not something I do.

After tech 13, I want my back row full of cannons. This is not economically viable most of the time, but generally I will attach more and more cannons to my armies as time goes on and the budget allows it.

When it comes to huge battles after tech 13, you want full combat width of cannons the whole time or you are going to be very disadvantaged.

Again it bears repeating, this is my own strategy towards composition. I recommend it, but find whatever works for you. Luck, terrain, logistics and leaders all come into play too so no composition alone is going to win a battle, let alone a war.

 

[Stadhouder]

I use probably suboptimal composition just to se sprites. In my common wealth game I would for an inf/cav of around 45/55 just so I could see the awesome winged hussar sprites going into battle, in my netherlands game for full combat width canons, cw-1 inf and two hories, with an all inf reinforcement stach nearby just I could see the canon sprites as well. If you always go for optimal composition you really only see infantry sprites which is a shame really.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm lazy after I'm making +100 ducats/month and have unlimited manpower. I don't really pay much attention. That's only for the early game for me personally.

In the late game, the biggest consideration is dumping 40 artillery on the level 8 forts so that you get the max siege rolls against those troll towers.

If actually fighting, 40 arty + crap in front of it so it doesn't get hit wins. Usually you have enough money in those tech 20+ ranges that you can cough up 80+ mercs (more if they're actually available), so even w/o quantity you can keep manpower a minimal factor by then.

 

[OldmansHQ]

Disclaimer: These are my own strategies towards composition. Use what works best for you since mine are usually geared towards being economically frugal.

First let's look at the situation before tech 13 for any non-horde nation.

I like to use all infantry with 2 cavalry for flanking. Cavalry cost 250% of what infantry cost so that is why I keep very few of them. They are far, far stronger, but keeping my army light and my wallet fat is important to me.

But if I'm going to fight a battle which I absolutely must win, I prefer to look at my enemy's army and counter it specifically.

Let's say the enemy is a stack of 14INF/6CAV/5ART. This means the front line is going to be 20 units wide. I would want to bring 24 units in this case because (until later technologies) you can effectively flank with up to 4 units, provided at least two of them are cavalry and they are at full strength.

But instead of just bringing 22 infantry and 2 cavalry, I would want to have as much cavalry as possible while avoiding losing "tactics" from having too much. For a western tech country you cannot have more then 1 cavalry for each infantryman. Assuming I were a western power in this hypothetical battle, I would bring 14 infantry and 10 cavalry. Bringing 12 of each would be bad because during the battle your infantry would suffer more losses than your cavalry and as soon as your infantry numbers fell below your cavalry numbers, you would lose some tactics, which means you take greater losses. Like I said, at this stage I would not consider using cannons at all because they are very expensive and before tech 13 I see them as only good for sieging. Some people will disagree with this, but that's what makes the strategies interesting.

The situation before tech 13 for a horde nation is quite straightforward. All cavalry all the time in battle. mercenary infantry are for sieging to save on manpower and the cavalry can loot and protect. In a battle I want to bring 4 more units than the enemy on the frontline to flank. Hiring non-mercenary infantry as a horde is just not something I do.

After tech 13, I want my back row full of cannons. This is not economically viable most of the time, but generally I will attach more and more cannons to my armies as time goes on and the budget allows it.

When it comes to huge battles after tech 13, you want full combat width of cannons the whole time or you are going to be very disadvantaged.

Again it bears repeating, this is my own strategy towards composition. I recommend it, but find whatever works for you. Luck, terrain, logistics and leaders all come into play too so no composition alone is going to win a battle, let alone a war.

A question: what is the point of brining to battle more or less than 6 cav considering that at most only 6 cav can participate in a battle, and they don't take any damage until infantry is brought down? So if you bring 8 cav, then two are wasted in the back row. If you bring 4 cav then you're losing out on a lot of damage, because irrespective of army width you can always have 6 cav, right?

I have been playing this game for so long, and this still confuses me.

 

[El_Cid_]

12-4-8 is what I usually go with for my armies. I probably build cannons a little early in the game but the fast sieges are nice. If I have money to spare I will mix in as much merc infantry as possible.

 

[ywxiao]

A question: what is the point of brining to battle more or less than 6 cav considering that at most only 6 cav can participate in a battle, and they don't take any damage until infantry is brought down? So if you bring 8 cav, then two are wasted in the back row. If you bring 4 cav then you're losing out on a lot of damage, because irrespective of army width you can always have 6 cav, right?

I have been playing this game for so long, and this still confuses me.

It depends on your combat width and flanking range. You can have all cavalry and they will fight, just takes more damage if over your tech group %.

Late game you don't really need cavalry unless against an army that cannot fill its combat width.

This of course depends on your coffers, having more cavalry does do more damage most of the time, but at 2.5x the cost is that 20% more damage worth it?

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

I always like nice even twenty stacks so I use 10 2 8 with reinforcements increasing cavalry