Spare yourself headaches - the value of standing armies

[unmerged(6357)]

Hi folks,

just playing 3 GC at a time (Austria, PL, France) and discovered something not seen mentioned in discussions yet:

Value of standing armies

In many posted AARs I did often see phrases like "rising additional troops to recover losses", "province lost cause I had no troops to releive the seige" etc. That made me think - and I decided to build a standing army that big that I never will bet caught by surprise and never have to plan upcoming wars cause I am prepared to take them anytime.

That meant maintaining armies of sizes from 10,000(Austria 1550)up to 300,000 (PL 1620). Although this does cost money (between 7 and 20d/month) it absolutely paid of. Example: As PL I was in a war with Russia and Sweden 1635. And was attacked by Turkey/Algier/Tunis/Crimea etc. after 1y of fighting. What the AI did not get however was that I fought the northern war without having to öower my garrisons in the south. So I had roughly 120,000 troops available immideately and won against a huge enemy threat easily.

What do the veterans think of the value of standing armies? Is it worth the cost?

Regards

Thorsten

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Depends on how aggressive youre playing, what country youre playing, and how fast you can build additional troops...

For example, if im playing Turkey, i have a standing army of 200k after 15-20y of rapid expansion. But if youre playing for example Genoa, there's no need to keep a big standing army...

It all depends on the situation.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I'd look at it more from an economic point of view. How much does it cost to raise troops versus how annual cost to keep them. So either I keep enough cash to build an army quckly, or I keep an army around. For Russia I'd never keep masses of infantry around. They have lots of manpower, and the cost of buying 1000 infantry is about the same as 2-3 years of maintenance. When I'm Russia I just keeps lots of artillery around, and add infantry as needed. In fact if I don't think I'm going to war for a few years I'll disband my infantry. Someone like Portugal has the opposite problem, limited manpower, and expensive troops. For them you have to keep a decent sized army around, and I will build some sor tof troops whenever I max out on manpower.

 

[Keynes]

Isaac's got it right. Infantry builds fast so as a general rule I try to keep a few stripped down armies heavy with cavalry and artillery and a large cash reserve. Then I can fill out my forces with lots of infantry when war is declared.

That also gives the AI time to pursue its old "invade the player's border provinces with an oversized army so as to maximize attrition losses" trick.

Of course if you are playing a small major (like Potugal) or a minor with only a few provinces this can be dangerous if you're timing is off. Also you will need some infantry to deal with any rebellious provinces unless you want rebel scum to inflict unnecessary losses on your precious cav and art. So its all a matter of balance.

 

[Legolas]

When my BB rating was very high (playing for PL), I used to have a standing army of about 85/600/300... It was worth the cost, because I always had huge armies to patrol the newly-acquired provinces and crash the rebels.
But while playing for France, I lowered my army very much in about 1685, had 50 years of peace (raised all my tech levels to maximum), then raised my army to 750/1000/1200 (very easily, France was very rich), and took the rest of Europe...
The standing army is good, but not always.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

I generally do keep serious standing armies, usually in the form of small regional armies near my capital and near any borders I might be invaded on. (With France, my favorite country, this usually means one in the north, one in the east, one in the south, one near or in Paris, and often a fifth in Brittany or Normandy meant for amphibious invasions). Each of these - depending on my tech level and riches - usually has 5k cav, 100 cannons (or more) plus anywhere from 15-35k infantry (so it's basically ranging from 15/5/10 to 35/5/10). I do raise a lot of armies during and following wars - to replenish the ones I lost in the war.

(Note in my French AAR, the amphib invasion of Anglia mounted from Normandy during the War of 1506... this was using this system.)

The same tactic works pretty well with other countries, with some modifications. For instance, with England or Spain I'll only have two or three of these armies rather than five or six... less borders to get invaded over... Austria will often have three or four, as it's a smaller area to defend (at least until you diploannex Hungary)... and with Russia, which gets cheap infantry (as mentioned) I'll often have a smaller infantry part, and raise it just before going to war. This can be a problem when someone else DoWs you, though.

 

[Lucidor]

It will take you a long time to ship troops, as well, so I tend to have territorial armies overseas. A German army or two, when playing Sweden. If your territory is bordering the sea, you cannot rely on deep defence, but have to keep a handy army to repel invaders, since they can occupy your province easily and chase you off - which means no more troops.

 

[ScipioAfricanus]

A large standing army is essential if you are playing a landlogged country with many potential enemies around you, especially if you have a high BB rating.

Cavalry and guns are most important, but you also need to have relatively large amounts of infantry. Even though the grunts are quick to build it still takes several months before they are maxed out in morale, and those months can really cost you if your enemy is better prepared than you.

If you have large standing armies that are well-balanced you can take the fight to the enemy from the start, instead of handing over initiative to him in the first months.

I'm currently playing Russia in the IGC on hard/agressive and having a large army all the time has really saved my butt when I have been up against large enemy coalitions.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by ScipioAfricanus

If you have large standing armies that are well-balanced you can take the fight to the enemy from the start, instead of handing over initiative to him in the first months.

This is a legit approach but it sacrifices some of Russia's key advantages:

1) Low supply value provinces in winter climes that can inflict horrific attrition on invaders.

2) Cheap infantry which facilitates near-instant mobilization when DoWs arrive.

Then again I usually try to play a more conservative, historical game and keep my BB down. A more aggressive style probably makes large standing infantry armies more justifiable.

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

In my latest IGC as Burgundy I had (after 50 years or so) 7 or 8 standing armies of about 20k to 30k. With these armies I beat the French two time in a row (and they can field armies of over 100k without any difficulty). I just let them come, shuffle my troops around and attack them in the back. If I loose a province i just send another army to recapture it while others continue to batter the homelands of the agressors. If you play it correctly and have some luck the enemy will wear itself down trying to bring you to your knees while you make real advances. This way you can end the war anytime you want while asking what you like.
I surrounded Paris like this in 2 wars and got a lot of cash out of it too.

 

[Chuwawa]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
When I'm Russia I just keeps lots of artillery around, and add infantry as needed.

But maintaining artillery is very costly if you go over your limit, which I always do. That's why I start builing artillery as soon as a DoW is passed. I do keep the cavalry and infantry handy though.