Victoria 1 (2003) had a better attrition model.

[Palatinus Germanicus]

Been meaning to say this for some time. In EU4, the enemy loves to go as deep into your territory as possible. Only thing that can stop this ridiculous hassle, is 1) forts, or 2) you intercept them with your army & win.

I'd like to stroll down memory lane for a second. Let's imagine it's 2003, and you're playing Victoria. You load as Russia, and wind up going to war against Austria... you want to annex Austrian Galicia.

Let's do the EU4 thing, and just march straight into Vienna, with a big ol' stack of regiments. In EU4? No sweat. In fact, go even further... siege up whatever you want.

But wait, this isn't EU4! By the time you get HALF way to Vienna, if you haven't taken any forts/provinces (AKA move the front line forward), you're going to be taking.... ohh, probably about 20-30% attrition. You like that? Good, let's go further. We march into Vienna, having taken nothing to secure our supply lines, and here we are, taking probably 30-40% attrition. AT LEAST. And yes, that's per month. Now you know what it feels like to be Napoleon. Let's not make this mistake again, shall we?

At least, not until the second decade of the 21st century. When all realism will be tossed out the window. When the entire Polish army can go deep into Russia, all the way to the northernmost part of the Urals, and only suffer, well... normal attrition. Yeah, that makes sense. Total sense. And their Lithuanian brethren will march all the way to the deserts of southern Kazakhstan, to begin occupying provinces. All the while being fed my manna from heaven. Totally, legit, bro.




There, I finally posted it. Been meaning to do this for a LONG time.

 

[ponasozis]

so now that you posted it
what exactly were you hoping to achieve ?

 

[TenshiN]

People somewhy assume that realistic = better. Not that i share that sentiment.

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

so now that you posted it
what exactly were you hoping to achieve ?

Well, clearly some basic attrition features such as those included in older Paradox titles, need to be carried over into this game. EU4 would be so much more realistic, if only you could stop the large army, deep penetration behind the lines, while suffering no change in attrition.

We don't need some complex, convoluted HOI supply chain model. Just a basic recognition that if you're far away from friendly-controlled territory (that connects to your capital, perhaps), you suffer more & more increased attrition, the further you go behind the lines. Especially for large troops concentrations.

I can't think of anything that needs to be fixed more than this. The forts, especially around western Europe, tend to mask this problem. But if there's no forts stopping them, any army can go as far as it wants, with virtually no regard for (what should be) catastrophic attrition.

Aside from that, it's just making warfare.... eh, dumb? Not fun? -Something like that. And by that I mean -- the A.I. always makes a break for the FAR side of your country. It's like he's programmed to go as far as possible from the 'front'. C'mon, man... it's just silly.

 

[sprites]

30-40% per month? that is ridiculous.

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

30-40% per month? that is ridiculous.

It was. That's why I'll never forget it. I thought, "why waste my time with border provinces... I'll just go straight at the heart of their empire this time". By the time I got halfway across northern Hungary (4-5 provinces deep), I was taking 28%. I thought maybe when I got to Vienna, a big city, things might change. Nope. I barely made it out of there alive. And my stacks were not ridiculously large... just 'appropriately sized'.

Going in, they were. Coming out, they were a shadow of their former selves.

Anyway, I think logistics in the 19th century would actually be better than EU4's time frame...? Canned goods, etc.

 

[ponasozis]

i mean we used to easily have 20% attrition in eu 4
its just that AI is too dumb to handle that much attrition by stacking his 100k in one province

 

[HRErceg]

Or the AI logic when attacking Russia: "Hmmm, i could go the normal east Russia way... Or, i could go to Spain, put the troops on boats, get them to North America, travel across it by foot, then get on another boat in eastern California and then land in Kamchatka... I am so smart! Wait, how did the human siege down my capital?"

 

[Anthedon]

Would be nice if the AI could handle it. With how things are now they'd lose all of their manpower way too quickly to present any challenge.

 

[YuriiH]

Attrition was initially meaningful in EU4, but then capped to 5%, because it is hard for PDX to code that AI moves in a smart way.

 

[sigeena]

Actually EU4 used to have a more punishing attrition model. I remember playing Novgorod and Muscovy will melt his manpower over my forts, attrition of at least 8-10% a month

 

[babuchas1]

It would be also a way to give the navy a bigger role in warfare, as a way to supply the army.

 

[holyvigil]

As others have previously posted the AI although smart in EU4 does not know how attrition works. The AI may have known how it worked in Vicy1 but in EU4 they don't. Maybe one day they will be able to code the AI correctly but realism has to give way to presenting a challenging game for now.

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

i mean we used to easily have 20% attrition in eu 4
its just that AI is too dumb to handle that much attrition by stacking his 100k in one province

Ah! A key point! A key point, indeed. I have also noticed that the A.I. likes to march around with oversized stacks, and siege accordingly. Doesn't matter if it's a full-sized Russia, or an impressive AutoBlob, if they've just finished a war of any significance whatsoever, yep... they have ZERO manpower reserve. -And they're probably all merc'ed up as well.

All because... they are total imbeciles when it comes to anything that could remotely be construed as 'sensible manpower management'. Another problem, we just might have identified here today.

So:

1) The purpose of forts -really- is to give the A.I. a place he can hide behind, after he:
2) Shatters in a way that is just flat out ridiculous, after he lost a battle because he:
3) Wasted all his manpower reserve sieging w/ a 46-stack (ca.1600) in the Alps over 2 winters,
and his merc's don't fight quite as well.


Yeah, I already know all this. I'm just suggesting that maybe it be changed. Start by making the attrition model more realistic, and then explain -gently- to the A.I. how it should comply with the more realistic model.

 

[Stgerlachus]

Honestly an attrition model with supply lines would be awesome. As would more attrition in general.

But I think it's safe to say that a model like that is beyond what is possible in EUIV. The AI simply wouldn't be able to handle it.

That being said I really hope that when EUV finally comes getting the fort system and attrition (as forts should affect supply lines) should be front and central, as they're clearly among the weakest elements of EUIV and it's not something you can easily fix if you don't make it right from the start.