-
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.
I played once as Poland and decided to do things differently than usual so I went quantity. But with the later patches putting even more emphasis on morale it was hopeless. Sure i could field much bigger armies but they were being constantly beaten by armies half the size. I'm not doing that again.
I suspected it was a pretty terrible idea. It would be different if you could just use human wave and plow through enemy armies, in effect trading your casualties for their more high quality casualties, but if you army has low morale, you can't even stay in battle.
I think history usually shows that Quantity can be an effective counter to Quality, so maybe it doesn't work as well as possible.
I think history usually shows that Quantity can be an effective counter to Quality, so maybe it doesn't work as well as possible.
It is perhaps a failure due to the low detail of the combat engine. However it has its applications I believe in ensuring certain nations like Novgorod always fail.
Maybe it would be a neat addition in EUII if you could choose a battle strategy ahead of time (God knows I don't want tactical battles like M:TW) but maybe an Empires in Arms like choice of : Assault, Counterattack, Outflank, etc.
Assaults would make more use of armies that are high quantity, low quality...
Assaults would make more use of armies that are high quantity, low quality...
You can use "some" quantity in conjunction with full Land. This is a useful strategy for smaller nations. Obviously you won't go full Quantity, but Quantity 5 can be about right. In the end however everyone ends up at Quality. The +1 fire value is almost always worth it.
Edit - I've also used Defensive Warfare instead of Offensive for the siege value, also in conjunction with Full Land. I did that as Venice. It was useful at first (before Land tech 5), then a pain in the ass for awhile, then became useful again as fortifications reached Medium size and Assaulting was less effecient.
Edit - I've also used Defensive Warfare instead of Offensive for the siege value, also in conjunction with Full Land. I did that as Venice. It was useful at first (before Land tech 5), then a pain in the ass for awhile, then became useful again as fortifications reached Medium size and Assaulting was less effecient.
How about offensive-defensive? I almost always go full offensive for the higher morale. I dont mind the higher cost of forts since i typically only built minimal forts. What do other people do and why?
I am always Offensive. The higher morale is a must, you get improved General shock value, and if push comes to shove you can just sit your army in the besieged province for a little while until it falls. No biggie. Defensive is not really worth it.
SecondReich said:
I would find that so inconvienent to use that I would never use it. If I'm fighting a war and I have five armies fighting simultaniously, the last thing I want to have to do is micromanage my armies' specific movements in battle.
I could only envision a fully Quantity army if I'm going full Land, Free Subjects and Offensive (at the very least, two of them), and with mostly plains provinces in which cavalry is more important than infantry (and so, with shock cavalry staying more important than fire infantry).
Who told about the steppes ?
Who told about the steppes ?
at high tech levels you nearly allways max out morale, especially if you go land.
As such, the 35% MP of going from quality 9 to quality 2 (IE losing only 1 fire) may well be worth it, especially coupled with cheaper troops, to offset your loss of 1 fire in leaders.
In low support, high fortress level areas it may be especially usefull, as you are sure to lose loads of troops nomatter what, and then more MP/cheaper troops is very usefull as a combo.
As such, the 35% MP of going from quality 9 to quality 2 (IE losing only 1 fire) may well be worth it, especially coupled with cheaper troops, to offset your loss of 1 fire in leaders.
In low support, high fortress level areas it may be especially usefull, as you are sure to lose loads of troops nomatter what, and then more MP/cheaper troops is very usefull as a combo.
hi all!
i prefer quality in any case. that +1 fire is always a must, and that manpower shortage it causes i usually solve it by vassalizing foes rather than annex them (unless core province). besides vassalizing has more advantages especially 4 BB rating (but i don't do WC's ), stab and tech costs. but i don't like to go quality until land 9/11 (prior to that i feel fire bonus doesn't do nothing). until then land DP is your best friend (depending on the nation of course ).
on other DP sliders, i used to stay at 5 offensive and going full free subjects (only go there if i'm a naval power, not land), but i have been trying full serfdom and full defensive, and had pretty good results with that, especially mid-game onwards. the combination of cheap forts and infantry (and artillery) works good while defending, and that siege bonus comes in handy while siegeing l3/4 forts. Cavalry, well, depends on how aristocratic you are. also you can cut army costs from 1/3 to 1/2 (never done the math before trying, but this little detail caught my eyes. it's always good to pay 30d for 10000 infantry (no inflation) and still know they kick a** )
bear in mind that i never played MP games (can anyone introduce me? )so might not work, but on SP works very well especially because (correct me plz if i'm wrong but never saw big changes in them) the AI never messes with DP's unless by (random) events.
regards, and sry for the long text
i prefer quality in any case. that +1 fire is always a must, and that manpower shortage it causes i usually solve it by vassalizing foes rather than annex them (unless core province). besides vassalizing has more advantages especially 4 BB rating (but i don't do WC's
), stab and tech costs. but i don't like to go quality until land 9/11 (prior to that i feel fire bonus doesn't do nothing). until then land DP is your best friend (depending on the nation of course ).on other DP sliders, i used to stay at 5 offensive and going full free subjects (only go there if i'm a naval power, not land), but i have been trying full serfdom and full defensive, and had pretty good results with that, especially mid-game onwards. the combination of cheap forts and infantry (and artillery) works good while defending, and that siege bonus comes in handy while siegeing l3/4 forts. Cavalry, well, depends on how aristocratic you are. also you can cut army costs from 1/3 to 1/2 (never done the math before trying, but this little detail caught my eyes. it's always good to pay 30d for 10000 infantry (no inflation) and still know they kick a**
)bear in mind that i never played MP games (can anyone introduce me?
)so might not work, but on SP works very well especially because (correct me plz if i'm wrong but never saw big changes in them) the AI never messes with DP's unless by (random) events.regards, and sry for the long text
SecondReich said:
it's still useful when you play a minor with full land full quantity and quite far offensive... but you usually have no more problems with manpower when you come to these settings
some experienced players wrote in their AARs they prefere quantity in MP, don't remember who was it
szmik said:it's still useful when you play a minor with full land full quantity and quite far offensive... but you usually have no more problems with manpower when you come to these settings
I would assume full quantity means 2, as those last two steps IMO do not justify losing another point of fire for your leaders.
Well I have only ever played one proper game with quantity, as Russia you can get away with it, a nice formula is
2 Quantity
10 offensive
10 land
10 serfdom (lots of serfs)
10 aristo
This gives an army with Infantry costing 2 ducats and cavarly costing 7 ducats. This means you can often build 5 times the amount of troops than the enemy can, it also means you can afford to fight in the winter, as your troops are so easily replacable. This was in MP, and I suspect it would work even better in SP as you can build masses of armies and seige all the AIs provinces while they attrition themselves away.
2 Quantity
10 offensive
10 land
10 serfdom (lots of serfs)
10 aristo
This gives an army with Infantry costing 2 ducats and cavarly costing 7 ducats. This means you can often build 5 times the amount of troops than the enemy can, it also means you can afford to fight in the winter, as your troops are so easily replacable. This was in MP, and I suspect it would work even better in SP as you can build masses of armies and seige all the AIs provinces while they attrition themselves away.
I think one of the biggest problems with quantity is that you lose warscore for losing battles. Otherwise, even though you lose many battles you would eventually win the war when the enemy is reduced enough. I love playing Russia on Normal with 1 ducat infantry. Who cares about attrition losses at that cost?
