What will be the general best army composition ?
- Thread starter AvatarThomas
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The general best? A doomstack outnumbering anything anyone can throw at you 10:1 for the instant stackwipe.
- 6
- 3
- 1
- 1
There is no general best army composition, because it depends on many factors. Often cavalry is a better than infantry, but it is much more expensive so it is usually not worth the cost. Likewise artillery helps, because it can shoot from the backrow, but it is even more expansive than cavalry, so it is not worth it for its fighting power in the early game(later they do a lot of damage). But it might still be worth it for sieging. But in some cases you can amass bonuses to cavalry or artillery to make them cost effective in other situations. And you don't need more than the combat width of troops if you can beat your enemy before your first batch of troops retreat and you can't get a stackwipe anyway. But if you can get a stackwipe, you need twice as many troops at that point (or 10 times as many troops for an instant stackwipe). And if the battle lasts long enough for your frontline units to retreat, you need reinforcements, but it is better to send them in later, so that they don't get morale damage while they are waiting
There isn't even one clear definition of best composition of what is the best? The strongest? The most cost efficient?
If you want strongest possible I don't think anything could beat country with 100% cavalry ratio, eastern tech group, all ideas to maximize CCA, Polish ideas and Prussian monarchy for extra discipline - front row of that army + full back row artillery should be the strongest even at tech 32.
If you want cost efficient usually it will be 80-100% infantry in front row but at some techs even Prussia or Sweden can benefit from cavalry
Your army composition should depend on your tech group, NI, religion and even opponent - e.g. Prussia in the last age have age ability for -20% fire damage and suddenly shock troops become more valauble, Spain can have -30% shock damage and even Poland may consider using infantry vs tercios
If you want strongest possible I don't think anything could beat country with 100% cavalry ratio, eastern tech group, all ideas to maximize CCA, Polish ideas and Prussian monarchy for extra discipline - front row of that army + full back row artillery should be the strongest even at tech 32.
If you want cost efficient usually it will be 80-100% infantry in front row but at some techs even Prussia or Sweden can benefit from cavalry
Your army composition should depend on your tech group, NI, religion and even opponent - e.g. Prussia in the last age have age ability for -20% fire damage and suddenly shock troops become more valauble, Spain can have -30% shock damage and even Poland may consider using infantry vs tercios
Last edited:
Yeah that's never really enough to meaningfully offset anything.
I'd honestly say that your army compo should depend on what you find fun on quirky.
There's a very, very simple answer to army compositions that you'll commonly hear from the most experienced SP & MP players alike, but I think the game might lose some of its charm if you assume the reality - that the game is much simpler than some make it out to be - rather than just playing around with fun things to match the story of your individual playthrough
never? Hannoverian ideas -15% fire damage, Divine -10%, Prussian age ability -20%, drill -25%. That's already -70% without anything crazy - just standard game for small nation in the HRE
Looking at the formula Damage received is a multiplier without adding anything else.
With shock damage in theory you can go down to 0, with fire to 10% taken but I wanted to give simple example and not something requiring multiple religion changes and nation formations
Because fire/shock damage dealt/taken don't affect morale casualties. If we're talking about what's ""optimal"", in both SP and MP alike you are probably going to prioritize morale damage by far above exhausting your opponent, as that's what's going to win you the war.
Again don't get me wrong; I get where you're coming from, it's just that the numbers hardly support it in the current game, except for maybe some absolutely most extreme cases? Kind of like everyone now keeps bringing up Poland to say that "look, cavalry is good, akshually".
And I'm sorry but a game where.. um.. we start as Hanover, then I guess we go into a theocracy, then pick divine ideas for no other reason than to prove a point, then form Germany at tech 20 while keeping our old ideas to prove a point is hardly what I'd call "standard"
But more importantly even if fire/shock dmg modifiers affected morale, and that you could get these high numbers in a very comfy way, the idea that.. supposedly deleting a part of your army, making cavalry, and then I guess deleting it again once you've won the war is a lil questionable.
Im mid to late game, I usually run with combat width infantry + a little extra and a full backrow of artillery.
I think if you want to min-max this further, it should just be a combat width infantry with a reinforcement stack of infantry nearby.
I'm doing a PLC run right now for the achievements and I run 50% cavalry but in general I never recruit cavalry.
Of course, if your stack is big and scary enough (size, quality, ahead on technology) then the AI will never engage anyway.
I think if you want to min-max this further, it should just be a combat width infantry with a reinforcement stack of infantry nearby.
I'm doing a PLC run right now for the achievements and I run 50% cavalry but in general I never recruit cavalry.
Of course, if your stack is big and scary enough (size, quality, ahead on technology) then the AI will never engage anyway.
The general rule of thumb is (and what the OP asked for):
Full combat width of infantry, and from tech 16 a full combat width of artillery in the back row.
Now, does this mean never use cavalry? No. Does this mean you can't use cannons before tech 16? No. Does this mean overstacking an army is always useless? No; in fact, with late game casualty rates it's required. But, in general, for the widest array of nations/ideas/situations/battles just use the above comp and your armies will be fine. You can start to do more advanced things (keeping infantry reserve stacks, making dedicated siege stacks, mixing in proper cav ratios and exploiting tech/pip differences) once you get a better grip on the combat system and learn all of the various modifiers that actually decide a battle.
Full combat width of infantry, and from tech 16 a full combat width of artillery in the back row.
Now, does this mean never use cavalry? No. Does this mean you can't use cannons before tech 16? No. Does this mean overstacking an army is always useless? No; in fact, with late game casualty rates it's required. But, in general, for the widest array of nations/ideas/situations/battles just use the above comp and your armies will be fine. You can start to do more advanced things (keeping infantry reserve stacks, making dedicated siege stacks, mixing in proper cav ratios and exploiting tech/pip differences) once you get a better grip on the combat system and learn all of the various modifiers that actually decide a battle.
- 3
- 2
- 1
^ Solid advice.
Also, there's a misconception that cavalry is "bad".
It's not. It's just expensive and as time goes on the flanking ability matters less as you're fighting at combat width anyway. In the early game, running cavalry can help you stackwipe but they're just not worth the 2.5x of infantry as the game goes on and their effectiveness matters less.
I generally keep the cav I start the game with and slowly start to replace with infantry and artillery.
Also, there's a misconception that cavalry is "bad".
It's not. It's just expensive and as time goes on the flanking ability matters less as you're fighting at combat width anyway. In the early game, running cavalry can help you stackwipe but they're just not worth the 2.5x of infantry as the game goes on and their effectiveness matters less.
I generally keep the cav I start the game with and slowly start to replace with infantry and artillery.
Devine ideas reduce morale damage too. Without other modifiers both reduction are very close to 5% discipline - they don't increase your damage but reduction is bigger. If you stack with other modifiers it can be closer to 10% discipline
cavalry is strong for all nations in eastern tech group, not just Poland. Even nation like Byzantium when it get's access to cossacks estate can benefit from cavalry, you just need to take different ideas than you would in standard game as western nation.
why so weird way? At tech 10 you form Hannover and change to Prussia. Since 1.34 changing government gives you full refund of reform progress so you may become theocracy just for a day to pick ideas or you can start as one and change to something else later (you can't form Prussia as theocracy) - there are multiple theocracies in the HRE at the start.
For me expansion in one region is standard play - you just pick different ideas that in standard game.
If I wanted to prove a point I would suggest starting as Ottomans, conquering Persia, creating Jannisary nation, forming Hannover for ideas, forming Prussia for age ability, changing religion to Zoroastrian, upgrading monument - there is a difference
why questionable? With 60% professionalism you get manpower back, in age of revolutions you should have enough provinces and income to do it in a few months. Alternative to deleting is consolidating and reinforcing with cavalry. If I would gain 1-2% by doing that I wouldn't bother, if I would get 20% I would consider spending money
- 1
Your argument is about adapting your army composition to your opponent
So here we're not talking about the likelihood of YOU doing all of these things in a random SP campaign, but rather either AI or someone in MP I guess doing them.
Having -70% fire damage reduction is not going to make you more likely to phase in cavalry into your army. That'd be quite dumb
And I'm sorry but I wouldn't quite suspect the AI of being able to go for a theocratic Germany/Prussia.
Even smaller chances in MP.
That's what I meant by "never enough to offset anything", although I guess I should've added "in practice". We can craft theoretical scenarios all day but no they don't really mean much.
- 1
If you are Smolensk, fill the front and back row with nothing but artillery.
- 2
- 2
