Terrain and its effect on land battles

[Jens Z]

I have found in the FAQ the following info concerning terrain:

"but attacking in mountains, and especially across a body of water, very significantly reduces attacker roll. Also, marshes, forests and deserts lower both sides' rolls somewhat. (Since these terrain types affect both sides, it doesn't affect the result of the battle much - it's just battle will last longer.)"

This seems to impy that attacking an opponent in forest, marsh oder desert doesnt give him any benefit, just a little malus for both armies.

Is it really working that way? Why should mountain give a bonus to the defender while marsh/forest does not?

From a logical point of view all those terrain types favor the defender - and that's exactly what I experienced in many games so far.

However, I wonder if the combat procedere is indeed working that way and hope someone can clarify...

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Is it really working that way? Why should mountain give a bonus to the defender while marsh/forest does not?

From a logical point of view all those terrain types favor the defender - and that's exactly what I experienced in many games so far.

However, I wonder if the combat procedere is indeed working that way and hope someone can clarify...

Wether you agree or not, that's the way it works. Bonus to defender in mountains, and at the other side of rivers and straits. Bonus to fleets fighting in national waters. Bonus to double amount of cavalry in plains and deserts, malus to cavalry in mountains. If you fight in your own provinces you benefit from higher supply limit, but your province is looted. Better do war on your enemies land. Looting is very damaging to the economy.

You can get fire, shock or siege bonuses through your domestic policy sliders, and morale increases also. Morale can be more important that the bonuses.

The thing is that winning or loosing battles is not so important. It is better to fight only when you are sure that you are going to win (tiny or really low morale enemies, or better both). You win wars by at least double amount of succesful sieges than your enemy.

 

[Chaingun]

The thing is that winning or loosing battles is not so important. It is better to fight only when you are sure that you are going to win (tiny or really low morale enemies, or better both). You win wars by at least double amount of succesful sieges than your enemy.

I am sure you know of this, but this strategy is only valid in single player. In multiplayer any capable human opponent will kill off any small siege forces, and therefore killing of enemy troops so he cannot do that becomes much more important. An alternative of course is to assault while you are strong, but then the enemy will 1) try to counter-attack you while you assault, and 2) counter-siege if you are the one to invade and happpen to lose your initial thrust. Still, the actual winning and losing of battles only affect warscore; the corresponding troop losses are usually far more important in MP. In SP like you say, the number of sieges can be very important however, because the AI is not intelligent enough to take them all out and some will always finish if they are many enough.