War is...annoying...

[unmerged(56231)]

Contrary to my expectations, as I do with any strategy game, war is extremely annoying and unrealistic in EU3.
1. Your army doesn't reinforce itself in enemy territory. Manpower will only decrease, even when not in combat.
2. Defeated enemy armies can retreat into provinces you have just/previously conquered, and lay siege to them again Encirclements simply doesn't work like it does in HOI2. Simply Silly.
For a game like this, you'd think waging war would actually be fun...

Never played EU before, so I don't know whether or not this has always been the case. Kinda doubting whether or not pre-ordering the CE was actually a good decision to make.

 

[Havard]

1. Armies should reinforce in enemy territory. If manpower decrease without any reinforcements arriving you are probably over the province supply limit, and hence lose as much to attrition.
2. You nead to cover your rear. Fortified provinces have garrisons. When you take a province the garrison is replenished by your men, but it takes time to fully staff a garrison.
3. Overpowering works. If there are small enemy armies you can eliminate them with a force ratio of 10:1 (10000 men will destroy a 1000 army).

 

[smn_]

Contrary to my expectations, as I do with any strategy game, war is extremely annoying and unrealistic in EU3.
1. Your army doesn't reinforce itself in enemy territory. Manpower will only decrease, even when not in combat.
2. Defeated enemy armies can retreat into provinces you have just/previously conquered, and lay siege to them again Encirclements simply doesn't work like it does in HOI2. Simply Silly.
For a game like this, you'd think waging war would actually be fun...

Never played EU before, so I don't know whether or not this has always been the case. Kinda doubting whether or not pre-ordering the CE was actually a good decision to make.

1. It's called attrition. If monthly attrition is greater than monthly reinforcement rate, armies lose men. However I'm not sure if it is possible to prevent attrition by cutting the supply lines, as I haven't had that big wars yet.
2. Keep in mind that the armies of the time are small and the tactics are "Let's get into a field and fight". It would make less sense if they were always encircled. When the enemy retreats, you have to make the choice: Do you pursue him (tooltip shows where he is going and when he's going to arrive there) to prevent regrouping or if you want to move somewhere else, or split your forces to do both.

It's not stupid, it's not illogical. However I agree it's somewhat annoying to hunt down the retreating forces. You're better off having a couple of small armies dedicated to chasing the enemy remnants and defending your newly occupied territories, and one big army to crush the enemy main armies and toughest forts.

 

[knul]

1. Your army doesn't reinforce itself in enemy territory. Manpower will only decrease, even when not in combat.

I think this is very realistic. Reinforcements come from your own terriyory, so it's logical that your regiments will not reinforce in enemy terriory.

You lose troops because of attrition. This mechanism penalizes Risk-like mega armies, as those will lose a lot of troops to attrition. It also gives the defender the advantage.

 

[otacu]

2. Defeated enemy armies can retreat into provinces you have just/previously conquered, and lay siege to them again Encirclements simply doesn't work like it does in HOI2. Simply Silly.

Isn't that simply because medieval warfare was actually different from WWII warfare?

 

[KAding]

During EU3 times there were no real frontlines like in WW2. Armies had to be chased. Armies also to a large extend lived of the land they currently occupied.

 

[colonelkadaffy]

I'll admit its a bit annoying when you have to chase a defeted enemy army aroud their territory you've just conquered (even with 4 armies i was chasing remanents of the english army around southern england for allmost 2 years)

But i suppose it accurately reflects the fact that back before the absolutely massive armies of the 19th centuary onwards it was pretty realistic for a 2000 men army to be running about.

It be a bit nicer if we could be a bit clearer on what makes an army actually surrender though.

 

[gigau]

It be a bit nicer if we could be a bit clearer on what makes an army actually surrender though.

The army dies but does not surrender....

 

[ashbery76]

Owned.

 

[ulmont]

2. You nead to cover your rear. Fortified provinces have garrisons. When you take a province the garrison is replenished by your men, but it takes time to fully staff a garrison.

The time factor explains why my wars have gone like this:

1. Siege. After about a year, province falls.
2. Move on to next province.
3. Enemy moves into newly abandoned province, assaults the incredibly small garrison, and takes the province back in < 10 days.
4. Repeat.

 

[colonelkadaffy]

The army dies but does not surrender....

Well what do you mean, im not talking about winning a battle till the other side has 0 men.

I've had it before (allthough this is mainly due with revolts, allthough it did occur once in kent when i had captured all surrounding provinces) where when the armyies morale reaches 0 despite it having men still left (last case i rember 600 infantry) it just evapourates.

Other times like i've said i'll have to chase them all over the place.

 

[Jodien]

Do the enemy rabbit-armies loot your provinces while they are running, like in EU2? I was too occupied chasing the French counter-clockwise in my Spanish territory that I cannot figure it.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

An army with 0 morale will retreat (but the enemy gets 1 parting shot as it leaves so it's possible that the damage done could be enough to destroy it).

Any time that one side is 10x the size of the enemy force, the smaller side "surrenders" (i.e. the army is automatically destroyed)

 

[EnderV]

The time factor explains why my wars have gone like this:
Siege. After about a year, province falls.
snip

I like the reinforcement, but I'd like more if you could say "reinforce from my current army here".
That said, I think that the current situation is better than EU2 where it was immediately at full with thousands of men.

Remember, in this time as often as not the result of war was no large territorial conquest (except for colonies), but concessions & money.

 

[unmerged(56231)]

Isn't that simply because medieval warfare was actually different from WWII warfare?

Yeah dude I think I understand that...
But to allow a defeated army to march back into a lost province, by which time it's actually enemy territory? Would you take the remnents of your defeated army back into enemy territory, or would you retreat and reorganise? You tell me.

 

[knul]

Yeah dude I think I understand that...
But to allow a defeated army to march back into a lost province, by which time it's actually enemy territory? Would you take the remnents of your defeated army back into enemy territory, or would you retreat and reorganise? You tell me.

Defeated armies already retreat and reorganise. That they can do this in enemy territory is hardly gamebreaking. The actual distances and province sizes would mean that retreating armies would travel dozens of miles to the neighboring province. By the time they arrive they are hardly a rabble on the run anymore.

 

[unmerged(52228)]

The armies of the time were smaller and less logistics dependant.
They could live off the land or take from local villages.
So it is possible for an army of the time to make a "bold" move in an attempt to lure you away from his provinces back to into yours.

This is a good lesson, glad you brought it up. Got to watch our backs.

 

[L'Afrique]

And remember that a captured province really isn't "enemy territory". If the only troops you have stationed in the province are a few hundred soldiers in the fortress, what's stopping their army from reorganizing in the miles and miles of empty countryside?

 

[vertinox]

Would you take the remnents of your defeated army back into enemy territory, or would you retreat and reorganise? You tell me.

I would agree. If an AI army is forced to retreat it should retreat to the closest non-occupied territory. If non are available it should attempt to retreat to the closet occupied territory that is adjacent or closer to non-occupied territory it should do so.

Allies and military access territories should also count as non-occupied.

 

[Escauro]

I think war in EU3 is more realistic than in EU2.

The armies are reinforced everywere but the attrition could be bigger than the reinforcement tax. The reinforcements for each month are distributed among all your "regiments" so if 800 men will be distributed an you have 10 regiments...
And this feature I think makes EU3 war more realistic, you enter in campaign with 10 regiments, a total 10.000 men. You battle the enemy and defeated it, the enemy retreats (and it could retreat everywere, ok is good in that period was normal). Your army (now perhaps 8500 men) siege the first city of the enemy. The siege option A: assault, big loses and a change of victory; option B: siege (loses by attrition). The city surrenders your army (3000 men now) must reinforce or it can not take another city. I need more troops!!! so recruit more regiments, and again the same (with the differents chances of a war).... I think that is as war was on the period, do not expect army corps working into an encirclement, massive front lines... you must expect small battles, sieges, more sieges and contrasieges again.