Most effective army compostion?

[MCMartel]

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.

Wait, so you should use 14artillery and then 40 artillery in those compositions? That's a lot of artllery s thing max out at like 2-6 units, or am I getting cavalry and artillery mechanics mixed up. I'd really appreciate the clarification if you could. So far mixture has been all infantry except 2-6 cavalry and 2-4 artillery, am I doing this completely wrong? THis is one of those core game concepts the game does an absolutely abysmal job of explaning, (difficult even with the wiki) so I'd much appreciate help!

 

[ywxiao]

If you want to have max combat effectiveness, you should have a full back row of artillery, and as much cavalry as possible without getting insufficient support.
The question is, can you afford this type of army composition?
Most of time the answer is no.

Pre tech 13 effectiveness of artillery is a very bad return compared to how much they cost, so no one really uses them except for siege. Around tech 21 is when cavalry's comparative advantage falls off in relation to infantry, so you'll have to think about whether you want to spend that much money to provide a marginal increase in damage.

The 6 cavalry rule is for max flanking range for tech 18-23. Technically after tech 23 you can use 8 cavalry for flanking, but remember what I said about cavalry's comparative advantage after tech 21, so most people don't bother. Unless you are like Poland, with Aristocracy, expansion, quantity. Your cavalry is like 25% more expensive than infantry and 50% stronger, or more if you went espionage too. In that case having as much cavalry as possible is a better idea.

So in conclusion, the best army composition depends on how much money you have, that's why there's no one size fits all.

 

[MCMartel]

But to clarify, in terms of mid-late tech, it's best to have a full back row of artillery, like almost as much as you have infantry?

 

[DEEPGAME]

It depends on which nation you play. For prussia 2 CAV is enough for 40k stack. For CW it is better to have CAV as much as you can afford.

I prefer not to fill all combat width with one single stack but with two stacks. Why? There are two reason for that.

1. Attrition
2. If you have two stacks rather than one when you attack on a single province with them on the same day you can most probably stackwipe your enemy if she doesnt get another supportive stack. The crucial point here : arriving there in same day.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But to clarify, in terms of mid-late tech, it's best to have a full back row of artillery, like almost as much as you have infantry?

This question has been answered 4-5 times in this thread alone, with the reasoning implied multiple times (and in one case, given directly and thoroughly).

Yet you're asking this question despite that, and despite this being in the wiki:

Units in the front row can attack any enemy unit within their horizontal flanking range. Normally they will only engage enemies that are directly ahead of themselves, but they can sometimes execute flanking attack regardless if it will be more effective at reducing the enemy's combat ability. This typically occurs if the unit is facing an enemy artillery regiment or a particularly outdated unit; in this case the unit may choose to attack the flanks of a stronger enemy unit nearby. Artillery are the only units that can attack from the back row, but they will only deal 50% damage from that position.

"Artillery are the only units that can attack from the back row, but they will only deal 50% damage from that position."

It is understandable if you don't know about the wiki.

It isn't really understandable that you'd ignore multiple posts + posters to ask a question in the same thread that already answered it though.

 

[MCMartel]

This question has been answered 4-5 times in this thread alone, with the reasoning implied multiple times (and in one case, given directly and thoroughly).

Yet you're asking this question despite that, and despite this being in the wiki:



"Artillery are the only units that can attack from the back row, but they will only deal 50% damage from that position."

It is understandable if you don't know about the wiki.

It isn't really understandable that you'd ignore multiple posts + posters to ask a question in the same thread that already answered it though.

People were giving different answers, so I don't know why you have to be so rude. Secondly, the wiki page, when I checked last, said it was out of date so I have no idea if it's still valid.

 

[Kollatius]

I guess I'm the only one here who uses 8 4 8 composition (8 inf 4 cav 8 art)

 

[Tumultuosus]

[...]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.

[...]If you're playing a strategy title, I recommend first learning the mechanics, then using actual strategy.

You do realize that you are quite insulting in the way you write your answers, don't you?
Making judgemental statements like the one at top can be quite harmful to others. He is asking a question, knowing he isn't really good at the game, and you violently tell him he is mediocre and should be ashamed to ask such questions.
Good way to antagonize people.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

People were giving different answers, so I don't know why you have to be so rude. Secondly, the wiki page, when I checked last, said it was out of date so I have no idea if it's still valid.

The one being rude is me? You ignored multiple posters outright to ask a question that was answered (with all the implications that carries), and you consider having that called out rude? The irony is amusing.

If people gave different answers the first time, what makes you anticipate that you will attain a different result while asking the same question? Artillery can still attack from the back row. Combat width, flanking etc are all unchanged.

I guess I'm the only one here who uses 8 4 8

Set comps are an inefficient formula. In the late game w/ both sides having full combat width/no special combat ability NIs, your comp is a liability compared to someone who just spams full CW infantry + artillery, despite that it also costs more money. You will spend more money to inflict fewer casualties and take more in that instance.

You do realize that you are quite insulting in the way you write your answers, don't you?

What you quoted in saying this carries no insult. OP already stated he is trying to learn. My message was and is simple: if you're looking to improve at this game, the question asked in the OP is a wrong-question.

Looking for a canned composition answer leads to someone blithely following advice from other players. Looking to understand why a good player made the choice he did leads to understanding the contextual applications of mechanics in the game. One question leads to mediocre gains in ability. The other leads to legitimate understanding of the game's mechanics and when you prioritize different unit compositions. Yes, it is discouraging that the canned comp question was chosen (and readily answered). I didn't name call him in doing so, but pointed out that if he actually wants to improve, he needs to ask the right questions in the first place.

Making judgemental statements like the one at top can be quite harmful to others.

"Judgmental statements"? Nonsense. If you're going to post that accusation, show us one. Rather than memorizing inefficient compositions, my suggestion was to learn the mechanics. Understanding them will lead to one being capable of applying strategy, which is what the game is about doing. The game is not about "I'm going to copy what this player or that player tells me to do".

Not only the OP's post, but numerous responses have been more "harmful" than a word I've uttered on this thread, in that they will prove a barricade against the OP ever learning to use the strategy the game offers for himself.

He is asking a question, knowing he isn't really good at the game, and you violently tell him he is mediocre and should be ashamed to ask such questions.

"Violently"? There hasn't been any violence or implications of it here, I mean I'm not even pressing my keyboard keys very hard or something ^_^. At least pick a word that isn't complete nonsense in context .

And no, I did not call OP "mediocre", but I did (accurately) point out that looking for people to just tell him what to do as opposed to learning the mechanics and how to apply them is a path to mediocrity.

Good way to antagonize people.

Pot/kettle and whatnot. I don't feel anything I've posted is more antagonizing than ignoring people, quoting points and misapplying them, and claiming people did/said things they didn't.

 

[Tumultuosus]

Being right doesn't give the right to be rude.
One should not look down on others just because they have superior knowledge.
I am sure everyone can word their answers in a polite and still efficient manner.
But then, if @TheMeInTeam thinks being very (perhaps too) direct is a necessary part of his answers and contribute to their understanding, who am I to judge?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

One should not look down on others just because they have superior knowledge.

Calling me rude, then repeatedly asserting I've done thing I haven't is obnoxious. I said that his question was discouraging. That doesn't mean I'm looking down on him, it means I believe he asked the wrong question in the first place and that unless the mindset changes he's not really going to improve in this capacity.

it's more disrespectful to give someone a canned set-comp answer as if one's own actions are the correct ones OP should follow. In my very first post on this thread, I gave an answer that, when applied, will consistently out-perform any set-composition listed in this thread, and will often do it for less cost. I also pointed out that when watching an elite player, the important consideration is why he made his choices.

It's that knowledge, not cookie cutter copying, that can be used to improve.

I am sure everyone can word their answers in a polite and still efficient manner.

Ironic.

But then, if @TheMeInTeam thinks being very (perhaps too) direct is a necessary part of his answers and contribute to their understanding, who am I to judge?

Interesting question, but if you were seriously asking it rather than trying to jab at me, you'd have never hit "post" after typing it .

 

[Tumultuosus]

Interesting question, but if you were seriously asking it rather than trying to jab at me, you'd have never hit "post" after typing it .

I'm always looking forward to find things I do wrong. Part of learning is trying, if I don't try, I'll never know I was wrong. I must admit I hesitated to hit "post".
Sorry for being rude .
And thanks for delivering detailled answers in threads asking about mechanics, what you do is great for "ignorant" players like myself .

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm always looking forward to find things I do wrong. Part of learning is trying, if I don't try, I'll never know I was wrong. I must admit I hesitated to hit "post".
Sorry for being rude .
And thanks for delivering detailled answers in threads asking about mechanics, what you do is great for "ignorant" players like myself .

You'll notice I never called you nor anybody else here ignorant. I do my best to avoid name calling in any capacity, though realize I'm not perfect.

From the start, my intention was to steer people in the direction of understanding the mechanics, and therefore understanding why a composition might be ideal in a particular situation. If a player can answer that, they won't need to ask...they can reach the correct answer themselves, and can do so even if that "ideal" composition changes.

And yes, I'll hold everyone to that standard, even new players for that matter. Improvement comes from understanding and adjustment, which isn't the kind of thing you can do by following somebody else's script...like that you can't even find your own mistakes.

 

[ywxiao]

But to clarify, in terms of mid-late tech, it's best to have a full back row of artillery, like almost as much as you have infantry?

Correct, as long as you have the money to support it and attrition is not a problem.

However, if your opponent only have a frontline of 20 units, only 26 can inflict casualties pre tech 23, and 28 artillery post tech 23. So then you should consider if you need to commit so much to a single battle.

 

[MCMartel]

Correct, as long as you have the money to support it and attrition is not a problem.

Thank you, sorry I was just sort of in disbeleif because that was so at odds with how I was playing so I figure I need to change that considerably, thanks for the help!

 

[El_Cid_]

I guess I'm the only one here who uses 8 4 8 composition (8 inf 4 cav 8 art)

Too few infantry there for my tastes. Need to protect those expensive cannons in the back row.

 

[ywxiao]

Too few infantry there for my tastes. Need to protect those expensive cannons in the back row.

Agreed, in mid game a 12/4/4 would beat that most of the time. But if his intention is to use it as small stack to combine for big battles it is decent.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Agreed, in mid game a 12/4/4 would beat that most of the time. But if his intention is to use it as small stack to combine for big battles it is decent.

12/4/4 would beat 8/4/8, yes, and if you reach combat width, 8/4/8 will beat 12/4/4 until the latter has max combat width of cannons. With flanking out of play, both can easily lose to pure infantry/arty late game.

In practice running around with 20 stacks of 12/4/4 is poor play too. The 20 stacks risk getting flanked (CW is 20 even at tech 3), while engagements to combat width will be pathetically under-manned in the 2nd row.

It lends to my point; if you understand the mechanics, you would realize why it's not an effective composition. That will lead to situations in practice where you'd have to combine 6+ stacks of those (120 regiments) just to have a full back row of artillery.

Once a player knows how stuff gets deployed and fights, this decision should be trivial, and the strategy is more dependent on what the player thinks he can afford to do.

 

[OldmansHQ]

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?

Once again, this explains nothing. I need to know the whys and hows.

 

[ywxiao]

Once again, this explains nothing. I need to know the whys and hows.

The whys and hows are on the wiki.
If you want a simplified answer it's because cavalry deals more damage than infantry, but cost way more.

If you want to pack the most punch into a given army size, then use as much cavalry as possible without getting tactics penalty. It is not necessary to exceed enemy CW + 2xflanking range though.