Suicide Armies

[unmerged(343)]

One of my pet gripes with EU, that I know has been mentioned in threads on other forums, is the use of small suicide armies to halt the movement of a big army. I would have liked this problem to be removed from EU, but PLEASE remove it from EU2. It is especially a problem in South America, where the Incas can hold up an advance for years, despite having virtually no army.

Maybe a moving army could retain all the movement that it had done prior to a battle, but take a bit of time to start moving again. This would mean that the suicide armies could slow down a bigger forces (as a small army harrying a big one might do), but not bring it to a complete halt.

Another possible solution would be to have a skirmish phase of a battle before the main battle and only if an army can survive this without breaking and running can real battle (with the loss of movement) take place.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by The Great Me
One of my pet gripes with EU, that I know has been mentioned in threads on other forums, is the use of small suicide armies to halt the movement of a big army. I would have liked this problem to be removed from EU, but PLEASE remove it from EU2. It is especially a problem in South America, where the Incas can hold up an advance for years, despite having virtually no army.

Maybe a moving army could retain all the movement that it had done prior to a battle, but take a bit of time to start moving again. This would mean that the suicide armies could slow down a bigger forces (as a small army harrying a big one might do), but not bring it to a complete halt.

Another possible solution would be to have a skirmish phase of a battle before the main battle and only if an army can survive this without breaking and running can real battle (with the loss of movement) take place.

I guess that I'd always thought this aspect of the game to be a rather effective representation of desperate skirmishing/limited guerilla type tactics. Certainly it is quite frustrating, as the computer will use this to stop your computer from conquering it many times, but this just goes to show the extreme effectiveness of the type of warfare being engaged in. =)

 

[Agelastus]

Re: Re: Suicide Armies

Originally posted by Heliumgod
I guess that I'd always thought this aspect of the game to be a rather effective representation of desperate skirmishing/limited guerilla type tactics. Certainly it is quite frustrating, as the computer will use this to stop your computer from conquering it many times, but this just goes to show the extreme effectiveness of the type of warfare being engaged in. =)

That's a very good rationale, Heliumgod, but the problem is it is too easily exploited by a player to the detriment of the AI since movement out of a province is always reset to zero as a result of the type of map used.

 

[Blade!]

Right, in fact as long as you have cavalry, and your opponent has anything else... he will NEVER get into your country if you do not wish it (and don't mind sacrificing a couple thousand horses)! Its ridiculous... can you tell me 53 cavalry units can drive my 50k army back to the city every time? Let the police take care of those bandits.

 

[unmerged(4290)]

but the problem is it is too easily exploited by a player to the detriment of the AI

exactly.. Some of us just can't resist it. I never use suicide armies, but many of my friends used it in multiplayer games to their advantage and it is frustrating to see them gaining new territories using cheap tactics...

I think a new route coding can solve the problem. For example, you are in Naples and moving to Rome. In EU it is three week journey and if you are attacked you return to Naples. If it was made of parts -possibly one week each- you wouldn't lose one month, it would be a few days maximum (which can be thought as the period of re-supply and re-arm after the war)

Any thoughts?

 

[unmerged(4426)]

What if the suicide armies would be completely eliminated after the fight? This way, the could hold an enemy army for short while, while they would not be able to pin down an enemy army in the long run.

If an army of one thousand runs into an ormy of a million, they will be eliminated, and not just lose a couple of men and then run away.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Grovflab
What if the suicide armies would be completely eliminated after the fight? This way, the could hold an enemy army for short while, while they would not be able to pin down an enemy army in the long run.

If an army of one thousand runs into an ormy of a million, they will be eliminated, and not just lose a couple of men and then run away.

But then you just send another.....and another ad infinitum-that's the real cheat, and even the AI can use it with nations such as the Incas.

 

[unmerged(4944)]

Just allow automatic overruns, like in so many other wargames.

If you attack an enemy at 1:10 odds, (or have the exact ratio linked to relative techs) your smaller army is automatically destroyed with no effect to the enemy's movement (perhaps the larger army could suffer 1/4 the losses of the destroyed force)

 

[AmbientOyster]

I think that the progress of an advancing army should be kept until it reaches its destination unless it is ordered to halt. The army must be somewhere on the road when they meet the enemy and it makes no sense to start again form 'the middle' of the province after a battle.
Skirmishing enemy units should slow the advance but not the way it works now.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by AmbientOyster
I think that the progress of an advancing army should be kept until it reaches its destination unless it is ordered to halt. The army must be somewhere on the road when they meet the enemy and it makes no sense to start again form 'the middle' of the province after a battle.
Skirmishing enemy units should slow the advance but not the way it works now.

Exactly. I have no isssue with smaller forces delaying the advance of larger ones. I don't use this particular cheat because guerilla tactics of that kind aren't really military pratice in the age of the game but I have no theoretical issue with dispatching 5k men to slow the advance by threatening supply lines, occupying a chokepoint (bridge) or just causing some FUD among the other commander who has no idea if my 5k is just the advance guard for a much larger force.

The way the system works now I don't do this but if you could stop porogress at the point of contact then I'd have no issues with it.