Relative Merits of the Different Military Ideas

[Evil4Zerggin]

Morale is more of a determinant of individual battles than Discipline/CA due to the following:

• Morale damage is scaled higher than casualties. All else being equal, a unit that starts at 100% strength and Morale will break at 40% strength.
• Maximum Morale affects both offense (the amount of Morale damage dealt) and defense (the amount of Morale damage that can be received before breaking). Meanwhile Discipline/CA only affects offense.
• It's easier to get large Morale bonuses than large Discipline/CA bonuses.

What Discipline/CA is better at compared to Morale is depleting the enemy's manpower.

 

[TheBloke]

Morale is more of a determinant of individual battles than Discipline/CA due to the following:

• Morale damage is scaled higher than casualties. All else being equal, a unit that starts at 100% strength and Morale will break at 40% strength.
• Maximum Morale affects both offense (the amount of Morale damage dealt) and defense (the amount of Morale damage that can be received before breaking). Meanwhile Discipline/CA only affects offense.
• It's easier to get large Morale bonuses than large Discipline/CA bonuses.

What Discipline/CA is better at compared to Morale is depleting the enemy's manpower.

Very nice summation.

Re the second point - so it's fair to say that a 25% morale boost is more like a 50% boost? Because it reduces by 25% the damage you take, and increases by 25% the damage you do? So 25% morale bonus is, effectively, twice as valuable as a 25% Discipline bonus (if there was such a thing)?

 

[grisamentum]

I think Discipline also increases Tactics, doesn't it? Tactics reduces casualties, so Discipline also works both ways.

It's just combat ability that doesn't provide benefits on both sides?

 

[Van Tuber]

Morale is more of a determinant of individual battles than Discipline/CA due to the following:

• Maximum Morale affects both offense (the amount of Morale damage dealt) and defense (the amount of Morale damage that can be received before breaking). Meanwhile Discipline/CA only affects offense.

What Discipline/CA is better at compared to Morale is depleting the enemy's manpower.

Heh, it amazes how there is always something new to learn about this game. I didn't know that morale damage increases with your morale; I've been undervaluing it. I'm not sure which is better now, probably situational.

 

[Evil4Zerggin]

I think Discipline also increases Tactics, doesn't it? Tactics reduces casualties, so Discipline also works both ways.

That is what the tooltip implies, but unfortunately the tooltip is wrong: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ow-on-wiki&p=16368885&viewfull=1#post16368885

 

[Novacat]

I think Discipline also increases Tactics, doesn't it? Tactics reduces casualties, so Discipline also works both ways.

Its supposed to, but it does not. Discipline currently only improves damage. Given, its not likely to change considering that Discipline is already very strong and buffing it any further would necessitate reducing discipline across the board because of how powerful it would be.

 

[Evil4Zerggin]

Very nice summation.

Re the second point - so it's fair to say that a 25% morale boost is more like a 50% boost? Because it reduces by 25% the damage you take, and increases by 25% the damage you do? So 25% morale bonus is, effectively, twice as valuable as a 25% Discipline bonus (if there was such a thing)?

I think it's a good enough estimate. To get a full accounting you would have to consider modifier dilution (+25% on 100% means more than +25% on 200%), the multiplicative effect (1.25 * 1.25 is a little more than 1.5), the fact that regiment strength affects damage dealt but not current Morale so a lower morale may allow faster rotation of fresh regiments (to my understanding at least), the balance of pips at a particular tech level, etc. But I think the quick-and-dirty doubling will be close enough for most purposes.

Its supposed to, but it does not. Discipline currently only improves damage. Given, its not likely to change considering that Discipline is already very strong and buffing it any further would necessitate reducing discipline across the board because of how powerful it would be.

Yep. What I think would be neat is if Discipline improved defense instead of offense, since we already have CA for offense.

 

[hauptman]

In my Brandenburg -> Prussia playthrough I was able to stay competitive and take on France's god generals and coalitions but still lose. I had incredibly high discipline, but France would always forced march every unit in 1500 miles into battle and eventually route my armies despite inflicting farrrrr more casualties. My armies had quality, quantity, admin and econ. I just never had enough morale to finish a battle as the winner while France's armies would take 10s of thousands of more casualties over the course of a single battle but my troops would eventually be routed, caught unable to flee then destroyed outright. Repeat that 5-6 times and eventually even the most advanced country will run out of men AND mercenaries to recruit. Once that happens you are just going to be picked apart piece by piece and it stops being fun.

You failed because you didnt take Defensive.

Prussia with defensive is just retarded good. Your max morale directly affects your morale damage. Having 10 morale vs france's 6 pretty much means you never loose a fight, unless retardedly outnumbered. You should be defeating france at 2/1 odds, and anyone else at 4/1 with little risk of breaking. I often double the morale of most nations, because defensive also gives military tradition. and alongside inovative, this will keep you at 100 miltrad without never even fighting a battle.

So i will state it again, as plainly as possible.

Always take defensive. Should be your second idea set.

 

[TheBloke]

I think it's a good enough estimate. To get a full accounting you would have to consider modifier dilution (+25% on 100% means more than +25% on 200%), the multiplicative effect (1.25 * 1.25 is a little more than 1.5), the fact that regiment strength affects damage dealt but not current Morale so a lower morale may allow faster rotation of fresh regiments (to my understanding at least), the balance of pips at a particular tech level, etc. But I think the quick-and-dirty doubling will be close enough for most purposes.

Awesome, thanks. Quick and Dirty is my middle name (it's a real nuisance filling out forms.) I'm happy to leave the detailed calculations to mathematically minded people such as yourself

 

[lordelenath]

I'll say it again: take Innovative, it's a godsend. Generals play a major role in battles right now (I would even consider they're to important), sitting at 90+ army tradition the hole game is plain amazing. Add the other nice benefits the idea group gives and it's easily one of the best you can take overall. Going Defensive - Innovative - Offensive and, if you really want to top it off, Quality will enable you to beat everybody, even including AI Prussia and Sweden. You should try to pick up Defender of the Faith too before major wars.

 

[hauptman]

By the way, causing an enemy army to break in less than 10 days (very possible with double morale and a high die roll) will do more damage than even doubling discipline. Stack wipe is possible only through high morale.

 

[gaius valerius]

No, most battles of vaguely equivalent troops (excluding Western Tech 12 against New World 6 or whatever) end because one or other side retreats, not because one is completely destroyed. Morale is king.

This is very easy to test, BTW. Next time you find yourself in a non-Ironman game, fighting an enemy against whom you have equal tech, equal generals, better Discipline, and roughly equal morale: save the game before a big battle. Fight it normally. Reload. Lower your army maintenance to knock off X amount of morale, fight again. Repeat with varyingly lower amounts of morale.

Like I said, I could be wrong, but at 100% morale, which would make your foe at theoretically 125% I get the idea that I simply managed to defeat my foe by virtue of doing more damage. Their higher morale simply meant they didn't break as fast, but my higher discipline resulted in higher performance, more casualties to the side with the morale bonus and eventually victory.

But as earlier said by Novacat, there are countless other factors: terrain, generals, etc. I think you could safely assume that higher morale generally wins in the mountains XD

 

[lordelenath]

Depending on your morale advantage it's actually possible to do stack wipes, I've had that happen quite often while playing my The Knights game and sitting at 11-12 morale. Managed to stack-wipe several 40k Russian and HRE armies, although I suspect they were weakened beforehand.

 

[TheBloke]

By the way, causing an enemy army to break in less than 10 days (very possible with double morale and a high die roll) will do more damage than even doubling discipline. Stack wipe is possible only through high morale.

Depending on your morale advantage it's actually possible to do stack wipes, I've had that happen quite often while playing my The Knights game and sitting at 11-12 morale. Managed to stack-wipe several 40k Russian and HRE armies, although I suspect they were weakened beforehand.

Yeah, if you can get them to rout within the first 12 days of combat, they will wipe. An army can't retreat until 12 days have passed, so if it needs to, it's treated as shattered and is destroyed.

 

[Incompetent]

I should try a Shiite warmonger game. You're basically always at full piety, which means +35% morale before you even get to ideas and army trad.

 

[Novacat]

I should try a Shiite warmonger game. You're basically always at full piety, which means +35% morale before you even get to ideas and army trad.

I played Shiite Sweden once, pretty much I was invulnerable. Especially since I had 1 mil manpower to absorb losses with. 166% Discipline with +85% Morale (before army tradition/prestige/advisor) bonus. Had defense, plutocracy, and defender of the faith.

 

[BigHamster]

With all the respect you guys underestimate nobility. Its quite powerfull early game. A lot of extra cavalry with breaks enemy lines, increased manpower, not to mention the epic +1 diplo bonus. Also I should mention its combo with economic ideas granting you few nice decisions "Abolish serfdom" and "Court of wards and ..." Its quite balanced the only questionable bonus there is "core creation cost +200", still it has some advantages if losing war in iron man or mp game. Over all military ideas I mostly prefer nobility as first idea.

 

[Jomini]

With all the respect you guys underestimate nobility. Its quite powerfull early game. A lot of extra cavalry with breaks enemy lines, increased manpower, not to mention the epic +1 diplo bonus. Also I should mention its combo with economic ideas granting you few nice decisions "Abolish serfdom" and "Court of wards and ..." Its quite balanced the only questionable bonus there is "core creation cost +200", still it has some advantages if losing war in iron man or mp game. Over all military ideas I mostly prefer nobility as first idea.

The problem is that nobility comes with freaking annoying rebellion events and you often have higher priorities for the first idea slot - diplomatic, expansive, and exploration all make more sense in the early game. By the time you want to dabble in military ideas, the cav bonuses just aren't as good as other stuff. Reduced war exhaustion is only situationally good - if you are playing tight with few losses, you just don't wrack up huge WE.

In any event, unless you tank Dip tech, plutocratic's tech bonus is far more DMP effective, equally MMP effective and the AMP savings are total gravy. I like aristo - but it isn't game changing - like how offensive can totally alter which battles you can force or avoid nor is it so nicely well rounded - like defensive with its bonus to just about everything military related (the trad is often worth more than 1 shock pip), morale is huge, siege/maintenance/attrition can really cut down on merc & reinforcement costs, and +1 enemy attrition is great. Top it off with the highly effective increased reinforce speed ... and well defensive is generally better than nobility.

Now don't get me wrong, I LIKE nobility - extra diplos are very cost effective & shock pips are nice, but I tend to consider nobility more for later (when I've already gotten diplos from other tracks).

 

[pharaomatic]

I like nobilitys manpower bonus, miltech discount and shock modifier, but all the cavalry buffs are just useless in the lategame. And the extra diplomat is nice, but you get so much more with the other military ideas.

In my Brandenburg game, it was my first pick, because of the diplomat and the miltech discount.

 

[Dr. B]

Okay I am having a newbie-moment that needs clarification. The two parts of combat, guns/steel/casualties and willpower/morale/breaking are 100% completely unrelated? Totally so?

I could swear I remembered some instance of casualties affecting morale negatively. So by extension high discipline -> more enemy casualties -> enemy morale loss. Wich makes Quality armies better against Defensive.