Number of troops do not matter

[vusalgustav]

Number of troops does not matter

I have a huge impression that number of troops does not play any role in this game?! I have seen so many battles where 3000 men defeating 15-16 thousand army (the same tech level). Sieges are not affected if it is besieged by 1000 or 20000 men. Only thing which matters, it seems that, how dice ends up which puts attacker in huge disadvantage due to terrain penalties. Am I only person who has this problem?

PS. Latest battle 18000 men attacking (with General) 4000 rebels. Outcome: defeat, 11000 men died from attackers and defender's loss is 2500 men.

 

[Stategem161803]

False.

3000 can only beat 15000 if:

-same tech level
-mountains
-river crossing
-much much better general
-favorable dice rolls

I will grant you that zealot rebels are obscenely tough and need to be nerfed.

Otherwise, local superiority will almost always result in a crushing victory given same tech level and comparable generals.

Edit: I'm guessing your issue was religious zealots. Yes that happens. Yes it's op. Yes it needs to be changed.

 

[Legolas]

Also, perhaps you forgot to raise military maintenance, which led to your troops having almost zero morale?

 

[vusalgustav]

Rebel type was pretender. army expenditure was at highest. It did not happen only with rebels. My 3000 Qara Qoyunlu men decimated 12000 Khorasm men. MY army did not have any leader. Khorasm army had a leader and was attacking.

 

[vusalgustav]

My impression is that terrain penalties for the attackers are too much. River and mountain makes -4 which means dice should be more than 5 in order to do some damage to enemy.

 

[Anthropoid]

Its not that "numbers do not matter." It is that so many other things also matter: morale, discipline, tech level, terrain, etc. To master the engine, you've got to become intimately familiar with all of these factors and how they tend to work out in an actual battle. Knowing how to deal with the AI's 'advantages' is also often necessary.

Check out the Land Warfare section of the wiki.

In actual history, there are plenty of cases where the smaller force was victorious, so bringing more men was not always a guarantee to win. Indeed, some of the most famous textbook battles are ones where outnumbered forces prevailed because of great leadership. Overall the combat system in EU4 is very good; not excellent nor superlate, but very good. It has its definite flaws and is very badly in need of an overhaul, but it works well within the frame of the game and makes good sense with respect to history.

 

[Stategem161803]

Rebel type was pretender. army expenditure was at highest. It did not happen only with rebels. My 3000 Qara Qoyunlu men decimated 12000 Khorasm men. MY army did not have any leader. Khorasm army had a leader and was attacking.

Hordes have far stronger armies than anyone in the early game. Given the enemy attacked you they probably had terrain penalties .

 

[Musthavename]

My impression is that terrain penalties for the attackers are too much. River and mountain makes -4 which means dice should be more than 5 in order to do some damage to enemy.

If terrain penalties are the problem, don't attack them there. See if you can find a way to enter the province without crossing a river. Worst case, let them win the siege, move somewhere else, immediately start sieging(or even assault) the province back, then take them out on more favourable ground. Your lack of a general doesn't help either.

Pretty much all of EU's military tactics are these sorts of defensive modifiers. If you're ignoring them, you're in for a world of pain.

 

[vusalgustav]

Just with my Qara Qoyunlu troop of 14 000 men under the General attacked 11 000 men of rebels. Discipline the same, morale is the same, in military tactics I have advantage. Terrain penalty for me -3. Result of the battle is total annihilation of my troops.

 

[Stategem161803]

Its not that "numbers do not matter." It is that so many other things also matter: morale, discipline, tech level, terrain, etc. To master the engine, you've got to become intimately familiar with all of these factors and how they tend to work out in an actual battle. Knowing how to deal with the AI's 'advantages' is also often necessary.

Check out the Land Warfare section of the wiki.

In actual history, there a plenty of cases where the smaller force was victorious. Overall the combat system is very good. It has its definite flaws and is very badly in need of an overhaul, but it works well and makes good sense with respect to history.

Agreed, but in this game battles are so bloody that if you have vastly superior numbers (same tech group and level) you will eventually kill the enemy infantry which will then very quickly destroy the whole army. This is regardless of whether or not the enemy has superior troop quality. This means numbers are generally the deciding factor in battles. Only in 1:1->1.5:1 battles does troop quality make a big difference.

This is why I mentioned "local" superiority. Troop quality can be decisive if you can manage to split a larger enemy army. So you take a 2:1 army, force it to split or wait for it to carpet seige, then delay the larger stacks while you destroy the smaller ones. Even if you are Prussia with offensive and full quality, you will have a hard time winning 2:1 or 3:1 battles against say France.

 

[Stategem161803]

Just with my Qara Qoyunlu troop of 14 000 men under the General attacked 11 000 men of rebels. Discipline the same, morale is the same, in military tactics I have advantage. Terrain penalty for me -3. Result of the battle is total annihilation of my troops.

You can pretty much count on your troops being slaughtered if you attack in the mountains with anything other than a 3:1 advantage.

 

[Legolas]

Could you post a screenshot of one such battle?

 

[unmerged(184583)]

My impression is that terrain penalties for the attackers are too much. River and mountain makes -4 which means dice should be more than 5 in order to do some damage to enemy.

Yea, and the AI doesn't know it either. My Aztec game, France was absolutely pathetic. Made me want to write a new AI for them, watching them lose 40k vs 110k absolutely annihilated because they kept attacking in Navarra. Finally i sent in 60 regiments and did the opposite (parked in Galacia, and watched as my 60 aztec regiments removed castile's 45 regiments from the game, purely because of the attacking penalty). TBH if there is one reason i don't get the sunset invasion it is because of France and their terrible tactics, and inability to beat castile and portugal, even with 50k aragonese troops helping as well. Only when i sent in my own 60k did we finally get a total victory.

Only things that really matter is attacking penalties, morale, and discipline. Even leader stats are vastly overrated.