Troop Quality

[Director]

Originally posted by Ironstar


I disagree. I think the morale system works very poorly indeed. Even when one's army wins a battle, it loses morale as it fights to that victory. Many times, one's army can be winning big, yet run out of morale and run away from a force it was about to annihilate. What sense does that make? I know if I am winning a fight, I feel great even if I am getting tired while doing it. One could argue that in the chaos of battle, anything can happen, and winning armies (or armies that could have won) could easily be set to flight by some miscommunication. But how often did such really happen? Flukes are called such for a reason.

Morale-based losses should not happen without a reason. Morale should not decrease without a reason.

Being shot at with firearms and cannon was enough initially to cow many American natives, for instance, so tiny European forces being able to defeat them easily makes sense.

But setting bayonets and walking right into withering clouds of musketry eventually became of a way of life for European soldiers, so having them lose tons of morale if they're not really losing the battle does not.

I have faced one too many instances where I've had fully paid troops at high tech levels run away from armies of rebels a fifth their size, or pirate fleets a tenth their size. This part of the battle system is ridiculous, because exceptions (smaller forces driving away larger, etc) are the rule.

There are many, many cases of nominally superior armies who lost battles, due to unexpected events, miscommunication or simple bad luck - i.e. morale collapse. There are also a great number of armies that were too exhausted by their victory to immediately exploit it. Don't assume the soldier on the field ( or even the commander ) really 'knows' whether his side is winning or losing while the battle is raging. If you've ever seen period firearms set off, you know they produce thick smoke - the literal 'fog of battle'.

On the whole, if you bring an army to the field with superior numbers, tecnology and morale ( or off-setting advantages, such as greatly superior numbers for lower quality ), you will usually win. If you have reserve forces, even an exhausting victory can be followed up. Unfortunately, the best army does NOT always win, and the game reflects this - another reason for reserves.

As the quote goes, 'A rational army WOULD run away', and that certainly holds true for gunpowder-era troops too, particularly before the age of nationalism. No-one sane likes being shot at and troops may tolerate gunfire, artillery fire, pike, bayonet and cavalry in different degrees.

At least for the Spaniards, gunpowder, horses and disease were not enough. They usually recruited 'auxilliaries' from the natives who were unhappy with the current ruler and used those to 'bulk up' their Spanish core.

I'm not one of the designers, obviously, but I think rebels and pirates are more difficult to defeat because they need to be for game-balance reasons. Monarchs and nations of the period had to devote considerable resources to 'security', and in this game we do too. At least until we develop higher levels of technology and can smash the 'rebel scum' flat!

I have suffered, like you, from the 'WTF! No way I could have lost that battle!!' reaction. I have, also, WON several that I really should not have, so for me the game system works pretty well, most of the time.

I'm just saying there are a lot of variables here that a simpe, abstracted combat system is trying to juggle. If the 'best' army always won, a lot of the game's charm would be lost for me.

 

[unmerged(9895)]

my biggest problem is with cavalry. It seems to me that cavalry have just too much of an advantage. you can recruit a 50K cavalry army (first where the hell they get all those freakin horses) and whipe out a 50K infantry army without more than maybe 5K in loses.

why is there not a horsepower or something like that, seems like it would be a good option and easy to impliment, and you could even option to buy more horses from merchants, at a steep cost in times of war of course.

i dont know, but all this history going on , and the fact the the lest used and lest effective part of warfare is infantry just bugs me, where would of england been without its redcoats

personally, i think the eu2 engine has it reversed. the fire phase of warfare is less important than the shock phase. the fire phase should be the time when most of the damage is done, while in the shock phase it should be a loss of morale mainly (those damn cavalry flanking you once again)

as it is, if that 50K infantry army marches up against that 50K cavalry army (again where did they get all those damn horse, and how in the hell do they replace them when some of them die) your infantry will kill about 3-5K during fire phase then as soon as the shock phase rolls around, bam, your entire army disapears, vanished , destroyed.

it needs to be adjusted so that infantry play the major roll in the military, really, its the only historical option

 

[unmerged(8576)]

But in the early period of the game, mounted knights were the main weapon of the battlefield. Only the English could make any use of their infantry, due to the longbowmen.

Though I agree, cavalry is a tad too strong.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

I dunno, Napoleon used cavarly to a good extent, but an entrenched 50k army by the late stages of the game could easily kill a 50k cavalry army. Too bad people back then got afraid really easily.

 

[unmerged(8576)]

Yep. Real cowards, I mean what´s a couple of thousand horses charging at ya?

 

[Castellon]

Well at tech 60 I will take the 50K infantry over the 50K Cal.
Especially in Mountains, swamps ...

 

[unmerged(11008)]

Victor Davis Hanson actually wrote a very good book regarding infantry's power Vs. calvarly. I think its called *Carnage and Culture*. He states that only a disciplined, motivated, and set infantry wall can repel calvarly attack. However he states that if such an infantry wall exists - Franks at Pointiers, Spanish during glory days, British squares, Greek phalanxes, etc. - they will always defeat horseman provided they are not led by mornoic commanders who ignore standard infantry doctrine (such as Custer).

Horses will simply not charge into a human wall of pikeman regardless of how much the rider urges his mount.

Kris you make a good point about "horsepower". If there ever is an EU III, I'd like to see that concept.

Until there is one, my armies will be all horsies until tech 25

 

[Castellon]

Calvary represents all aspects of mounted units.
So the horse archers would just sit back and shoot at your squares.

 

[Director]

Originally posted by Castellon
Calvary represents all aspects of mounted units.
So the horse archers would just sit back and shoot at your squares.

Yes, but... do you HAVE mounted archers? And is infantry ALL he has?

Properly employed any unit may beat any other unit of comparable strength. It is knowing what each unit is capable of and being able to employ it the way you wish that tells the tale. Admittedly, light mounted archers are a powerful foe, which is why western armies had such trouble defeating eastern armies that were build around that unit. But it can be done.


In real history, there was only a short period where cavalry (knights) completely dominated infantry, but there are numerous battles where cavalry got the better of infantry. And vice versa. Likewise, shock cavalry unassisted by firepower can be beaten by properly used firepower (Agincourt). Et cetera, et cetera.

A game of this size and scope doesn't need to dip into tactics, though some chrome would be a nice addition...

(drools) - think of being able to custom design units to your own specifications!

Well, no matter - the game just doesn't need that.

 

[unmerged(6042)]

There are many, many cases of nominally superior armies who lost battles, due to unexpected events, miscommunication or simple bad luck - i.e. morale collapse. There are also a great number of armies that were too exhausted by their victory to immediately exploit it. Don't assume the soldier on the field ( or even the commander ) really 'knows' whether his side is winning or losing while the battle is raging. If you've ever seen period firearms set off, you know they produce thick smoke - the literal 'fog of battle'.

On the whole, if you bring an army to the field with superior numbers, tecnology and morale ( or off-setting advantages, such as greatly superior numbers for lower quality ), you will usually win. If you have reserve forces, even an exhausting victory can be followed up. Unfortunately, the best army does NOT always win, and the game reflects this - another reason for reserves.

As the quote goes, 'A rational army WOULD run away', and that certainly holds true for gunpowder-era troops too, particularly before the age of nationalism. No-one sane likes being shot at and troops may tolerate gunfire, artillery fire, pike, bayonet and cavalry in different degrees. At least for the Spaniards, gunpowder, horses and disease were not enough. They usually recruited 'auxilliaries' from the natives who were unhappy with the current ruler and used those to 'bulk up' their Spanish core.

I'm not one of the designers, obviously, but I think rebels and pirates are more difficult to defeat because they need to be for game-balance reasons. Monarchs and nations of the period had to devote considerable resources to 'security', and in this game we do too. At least until we develop higher levels of technology and can smash the 'rebel scum' flat!

I have suffered, like you, from the 'WTF! No way I could have lost that battle!!' reaction. I have, also, WON several that I really should not have, so for me the game system works pretty well, most of the time.

I'm just saying there are a lot of variables here that a simpe, abstracted combat system is trying to juggle. If the 'best' army always won, a lot of the game's charm would be lost for me.

I agree with much of what you say. Especially about the difficulty period rulers had with rebels. IMO, rebels seem far too weak in the game, sometimes. Perhaps, as Castellon suggested, I merely recall my various implausible losses more than I do my implausible victories. But I have nonetheless had long stretches of ridiculous, wholly morale-based losses at times that stretch the bounds of believability. I can tolerate fluke or improbable losses --they happened at times, in history. But not patterns of them...that makes my teeth grind.

 

[Kelvin]

There is also a third category, and that's winning and losing the battle at the same time. I moved 4k cav army to attack 20k rebel scum on the plains and my army annihilated the rebel scum and then immediately retreated out of province because their morale collapsed the moment the rebel scum disappeared.

 

[Director]

Originally posted by Ironstar


I agree with much of what you say. Especially about the difficulty period rulers had with rebels. IMO, rebels seem far too weak in the game, sometimes. Perhaps, as Castellon suggested, I merely recall my various implausible losses more than I do my implausible victories. But I have nonetheless had long stretches of ridiculous, wholly morale-based losses at times that stretch the bounds of believability. I can tolerate fluke or improbable losses --they happened at times, in history. But not patterns of them...that makes my teeth grind.

And I agree with what you say... after YOU, my dear Alphonse!
Seriously, I was just playing a game as Benin - not the best quality army in the list. But still, to reliably lose EVERY combat to rebels and have to organize two to three 'human wave' attacks to take them down is EXTREMELY aggravating.

 

[Director]

Originally posted by Kelvin
There is also a third category, and that's winning and losing the battle at the same time. I moved 4k cav army to attack 20k rebel scum on the plains and my army annihilated the rebel scum and then immediately retreated out of province because their morale collapsed the moment the rebel scum disappeared.

Some time ago I fought rebels, lost and retreated. The rebels then came after me, attacked my now outnumbered army - and vaporized. I guess they lost - I loved it!

 

[Castellon]

Rebels rarely give me trouble. If you station 10K calvary in the provinces that have revolt risk, you will rarely lose the battle since the rebels having just appeared will have very low morale. If they do win they do not kill many of my troops who will retreat into a neighbouring province. If I have 10K sitting on an adjacent province I will start them moving into the rebel province as soon as they start the battle with the force stationed in the province. Two things can then happen, The battle is over before the renforcements arrive and they kill the rebels, or the battle is still going on and they boost the morale of my troops and turn the tide of battle in my favour. Sure fire way to handle rebels, with minimal loses of troops!

 

[Kelvin]

I'm using the same system, but that can be very hard when you are at war (as 8-prov. Brandenburg) with Poland, Russia, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Venice (4 different wars, not my fault, stupid 1-prov. vassal decided to take on the world ) and getting only 24k of troops annually.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Kelvin
I'm using the same system, but that can be very hard when you are at war (as 8-prov. Brandenburg) with Poland, Russia, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Venice (4 different wars, not my fault, stupid 1-prov. vassal decided to take on the world ) and getting only 24k of troops annually.

It can be difficult when just getting going but It quickly becomes self sustaining since every 30 years you have a fresh army to grab more teritory with.

 

[Kelvin]

This was in GC around 1650, with maxed quality and defensive, that's why I had so few troops. Luckily, Russians had a very narrow corridor to reach me, I've eliminated Scandinavian navies right at the start, and Austria&Poland (yup, allied) had mighty (or, to be more precise "large") problems with my southeastern fortresses...