Why am I being steamrolled by the Europeans?

[GaiusJulius]

Hello there!
First time poster, and with a noob question.
I've started playing a while ago and after some struggles with learning the game I am doing my first complete 1444-1820 game as Japan. I feel comfortable with most of the mechanics and I've been winning wars and steadily growing my empire.
Until I encountered the French.
We were on the same military tech level, and about the same army composition. I'm not sure about their ideas, but I had quality and offensive. I tried to force them to be the attacker in mountains, or fight on grasslands. Regardless, they wiped the floor with me, beating my armies even when outnumbered 2 to 1. However, they had at 2 generals with 3 stars and I only had 2 stars.
Not really sure what to learn from that failed war, this was repeated when the Russian smashed my armies 2.5 to 1, even my back row was full of artillery and they had about 2/3 of the back row.

Does anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Can anyone link me to a detailed combat guide?
This game is already in 1800 so I probably won't take Paris on this playthrough, but I don't want to repeat my mistakes in the next game

 

[Dominion]

I'm not sure about their ideas, but I had quality and offensive

French ideas

Elan!

+20% Morale of armies

And I'm pretty sure they got defensive on top of it.

Military Drill

+15% Morale of armies

2 mil groups is rather shabby. If this was MP you'd get laughed at before getting wiped. In SP it's okay since you can play around it, but still.
You also forgot to hire the correct mil advisor (morale or discipline).
Their AT was probably higher as well.

And I'd read Zwirbaum's unit guide if I were you.
One of the only two guides I deem mandatory (the other being atwix' guide for royal marriages)

Zwirbaum's unit guide

EDIT: Almost forgot. You're in the Chinese tech group.
Your inf and cav have 2 fewer pips than western units that late into the game.

https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Land_units#Chinese

 

[Dakka]

http://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Land_warfare

Well, for starters, the Europeans have the best units in the late game. Your troops easily outshine them in the early game and are about on-par Midgame. So that is part of your problem. However, they shouldn’t necessarily slaughter you just because of that, there are other factors.

France is notorious for having a very powerful military: their morale is insanely high and makes them very difficult to deal with no matter who you are playing as.
Russia also has a very good military, but quality wise shouldn’t outshine the Japanese by any special margin. Their strength is in their generals.

It’s likely the generals, they make a huge difference. Basically how it works is that in each round of combat, you roll a die. This roll is then modified by various modifiers. Generals add their skill subtracted by the difference of the enemy general and add it to their roll. So if you have a 2 shock general, and they have a 4 shock general, they will add two to their roll, and you get no bonus.
This roll determines how wel you do in each round.

 

[Brynjar]

Difference in morale and discipline is most likely the cause. Morale is gained in by loads of factors: Army tradition (up to +25%), prestige (-10% to +10%), events(-10% to +15% at least), advisors(+10%), ideas(defensive and plutocratic gives +15% and +10%), golden era (+10%), power projection (up to +10%), ruler trait (+5%), defender of the faith(+5%) and tech (mil tech 3, 4, 15, 26 and 30) are the ones which immediately comes to mind. In addition there are national ideas and traditions, the French gets +20% from these. In addition some religions can give morale boost.

Discipline has fewer sources, mainly ideas (offensive and quality), events, ruler trait, events and advisors. Discipline modifiers generally are about half the amount of morale modifiers.

As for generals, the amount of stars isn't a very good description of a generals quality. A 2 star general can be anything between utter crap and amazing, depending on the distibution of the pips. A 3 star general, although usually pretty good can also be mediocre when it comes to battles if the majority of the pips are in manouvering and siege. In 1800 you want as many fire pips as possible.

You can check your morale modifiers by hovering over the morale in the military view:

 

[PhoenixG]

Besides you got weaker units, it would be easier to pin point with screenshots.

 

[GaiusJulius]

Thank you very much for the swift and detailed answers. You are all very kind and helpful.

I now see my problems: unit quality, morale and generals.

You also forgot to hire the correct mil advisor (morale or discipline).

Definitely true. I noticed this when my mil advisor died in the middle of the war with France, and it went better after taking a morale advisor. I should consider this when fighting against an enemy with superior morale.

And I'd read Zwirbaum's unit guide if I were you.
One of the only two guides I deem mandatory (the other being atwix' guide for royal marriages)

I'll add these to my read-list before the next game

It’s likely the generals, they make a huge difference.

How do you suggest to tackle this problem? If I understand correctly, I need higher military tradition to get better generals.
Japan has an event that occurs every couple of years called "New Generation of Samurai" that has you pick between 30 admin points and 5 army tradition - I guess I shouldn't have hogged all those admin points
Besides that, I fought battles and brought honour to the mighty Japanese nation. How come I didn't have more military tradition?

Regarding the quality of the units, I understand that there is nothing to do about this except excel in other aspects.

Difference in morale and discipline is most likely the cause. Morale is gained in by loads of factors: Army tradition (up to +25%), prestige (-10% to +10%), events(-10% to +15% at least), advisors(+10%), ideas(defensive and plutocratic gives +15% and +10%), golden era (+10%), power projection (up to +10%), ruler trait (+5%), defender of the faith(+5%) and tech (mil tech 3, 4, 15, 26 and 30) are the ones which immediately comes to mind. In addition there are national ideas and traditions, the French gets +20% from these. In addition some religions can give morale boost.

Thank you for this great summary and for the screenshot!

Besides you got weaker units, it would be easier to pin point with screenshots.

I would have posted screenshots, except that I don't have them anymore. Time has passed in the game and I don't think the current situation reflects what I had in those two wars. I will definitely prepare screenshots for the next time.

Thank you all again (and in advance to whoever else replies here )

 

[Dominion]

How do you suggest to tackle this problem? If I understand correctly, I need higher military tradition to get better generals.
Japan has an event that occurs every couple of years called "New Generation of Samurai" that has you pick between 30 admin points and 5 army tradition - I guess I shouldn't have hogged all those admin points

Not necessarily. AT decays pretty fast. Can't hog those points.

Check out idea groups. Defensive gives yearly AT. Same for quality.
Having both lets you sit at ~30AT without doing anything.
Other sources are battles (stackwipes give increased AT) and successful sieges.

It's a rarely used tactic, but if you're really in a pickle you can declare on a few minor nations and farm it before declaring on a major player.

Alternatively you can ask Estates for a general. He's guaranteed to roll with 40AT.

Besides that, I fought battles and brought honour to the mighty Japanese nation. How come I didn't have more military tradition?

It decays extremely fast. I can't remember a single run of mine where I was able to sit above 90AT constantly except for World Conquests or Byzantium runs (free AT from events).

Regarding the quality of the units, I understand that there is nothing to do about this except excel in other aspects.

It's a science in itself.

After a while you start memorizing that stuff.
Unit pips are the second most important factor after morale, if not the most important factor.
Definitely worth memorizing.

Keep looking at his guide every now and then or the wiki article, whichever provides better readability for you.

You'll need it.

 

[PhoenixG]

Not necessarily. AT decays pretty fast. Can't hog those points.

Check out idea groups. Defensive gives yearly AT. Same for quality.
Having both lets you sit at ~30AT without doing anything.
Other sources are battles (stackwipes give increased AT) and successful sieges.

It's 40AT. Every +1 yearly AT or -1 yearly decay AT increase your minimum AT with 20

 

[Dominion]

It's 40AT. Every +1 yearly AT or -1 yearly decay AT increase your minimum AT with 20

I remember getting that exact same comment from you last time I said it's 30 and checking during my next run to see it kept decaying below 40 AT despite filling both groups.

Not going to say the discussion is over. Something else could have happened (I may even misremember *gasp*).

My only active run is Nagaur in 1446 though so it may get difficult for me to grab a screen in the next few minutes

Okay, I got curious and stopped my run for a quick console test.

You are correct. I misremembered. Apologies.

 

[Brynjar]

It decays extremely fast. I can't remember a single run of mine where I was able to sit above 90AT constantly except for World Conquests or Byzantium runs (free AT from events).

I wouldn't say it decays extremely fast, it's 5% of your current army tradition per year. With 80 army tradition (equals +20% morale) it decays by 2 points per year if you have defensive and Quality ideas, maintaining it at 70+ shouldn't be any problem after 1700. In addition to ideas and battles, fully maintained forts can give up to +1% yearly army tradition, but it requires so many forts it's not really worth it. Aristocratic ideas also reduces the decay rate by 1%.

My best tip to keep army tradition high, besides constant warfare, is to be very careful with selecting options which reduces army tradition from events (or not selecting + army tradition). there are many of them, and in addition Good generals and morale it also gives manpower recovery (up to 10%)

 

[Dominion]

I wouldn't say it decays extremely fast, it's 5% of your current army tradition per year. With 80 army tradition (equals +20% morale) it decays by 2 points per year if you have defensive and Quality ideas, maintaining it at 70+ shouldn't be any problem after 1700. In addition to ideas and battles, fully maintained forts can give up to +1% yearly army tradition, but it requires so many forts it's not really worth it. Aristocratic ideas also reduces the decay rate by 1%.

My best tip to keep army tradition high, besides constant warfare, is to be very careful with selecting options which reduces army tradition from events (or not selecting + army tradition). there are many of them, and in addition Good generals and morale it also gives manpower recovery (up to 10%)

I don't use quality and forts in SP are a travesty, but that's not the point. I was replying to his idea of holding onto AT from events.

+5 AT from an event will disappear without you noticing. Constant warfare is the only way to keep it up.

 

[Gans]

It's 40AT. Every +1 yearly AT or -1 yearly decay AT increase your minimum AT with 20

That's only true for +1AT. For decay it's only true if you are sitting on 100AT (i.e. basically never) otherwise it worth much less, just like prestige decay ideas.

 

[PhoenixG]

Ok, looks like I'm wrong. It's due +1 AT is a flat one, while the decay is a % value.

 

[Aythne]

Ok, looks like I'm wrong. It's due +1 AT is a flat one, while the decay is a % value.

Yeah decay is only as good as +yearly if your AT is at 100.

Unit pips are the second most important factor after morale, if not the most important factor.

Morale is only supreme for the early game. Late game it can actually be a detriment, if going up against high-quality troops: your frontline won't retreat and can literally get wiped faster than their morale drops. This kind of scenario is rare, but it's a good demonstration of what changes with the increased lethality of combat in the later-game, and why a good, simple tip for new players is "Morale Advisor early, Discipline advisor later".

However, they had at 2 generals with 3 stars and I only had 2 stars.

I see this many times among new players: the Stars rating is good for eyeballing, but it doesn't actually tell you how good a general is in specific cases.

Both a 0/6/6/6 (fire/shock/maneuver/siege) general and a 6/6/0/0 general are rated at three stars, despite the former having zero fire pips and thus being a huge liability in late-game combat.

Similarly, a 6/6/6/6 rates as a three star general (according to the formula sussed out here there should technically be 4 stars: https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/37gqkz/formula_for_stars_of_generals/ ) while a 0/0/6/6 rates as a two star general. You might say "my two star versus his three star" as though things were close, when in reality you were leading children against one of the great military minds in history. This is why looking at their combat stats, not their stars, is the important factor. Shock is king in the early game, Fire is dominant at Tech 16 and only gets moreso as time progresses, Maneuver is sneaky good for a lot of reasons (negating river/straight penalties, attrition and reinforcement in enemy territory) but isn't a great combat stat, and siege is useless on the field but will win you more campaigns than a full roster of 6/6/6/0s.

 

[Dominion]

Morale is only supreme for the early game. Late game it can actually be a detriment, if going up against high-quality troops: your frontline won't retreat and can literally get wiped faster than their morale drops. This kind of scenario is rare, but it's a good demonstration of what changes with the increased lethality of combat in the later-game, and why a good, simple tip for new players is "Morale Advisor early, Discipline advisor later".

Yea, define "early".
Morale is superior for more than half the game and even beyond that it's superior when fighting against a good part of the world. That's not what I call early.

You're thinking about >6.0 morale fights.

Since we're on that topic, has anyone ever figured out the actual tipping point including tech groups and unit pips?
Not including niche cases where discipline in 1500 makes sense. Only general cases.

 

[Aythne]

You're thinking about >6.0 morale fights.

You mean, the only fights that matter at that point? Hitting 40% bonus morale is a given for any player country (AT + Prestige + PP), and it might be considerably higher given my NIs and religion. That means by tech 15, roughly 1575 if my memory serves, my Morale is quite likely over 6. I don't see how that constitutes more than half the game.

By then, in a singleplayer campaign there will be a handful of nations that still require thought to fight against. I'm going to want sturdier troops if I want to face them in battle, not slightly more morale. Especially since I'm likely down 1-3 military idea groups on them.

In multiplayer, where I'm fighting battles with hundreds of thousands of men over months of time, morale isn't what will break one side's back. (Unless it's absolutely atrocious, but then the same is true of everything.) Want to gank a neighbour really fast? Then sure, early Defensive is a very strong play for a 15% boost timed with tech 6 or 7. But otherwise the synergies of Offensive and Quality bring far more to the table.

The one reason I'd keep a morale advisor is rebels. Most of the men you'll lose in a singleplayer campaign are to the Redblacks.

Since we're on that topic, has anyone ever figured out the actual tipping point including tech groups and unit pips?
Not including niche cases where discipline in 1500 makes sense. Only general cases.

I do not envy the person who undertakes that effort. So much of the minutiae comes down to what units you're fielding versus the opponent. If I've got a huge morale pip advantage of course that would sway me, but to take in account every group versus every other? That might sound like fun to someone, but I'll settle for checking https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Land_units when the need arises. : )

You're right to point this out, though. There isn't a hard and fast rule (other than morale is really good early, gets relatively worse over time), and there honestly aren't that many choices you make over the course of the game. 10% morale vs 5% discipline from advisors is the main one, but even Idea groups are entirely based on your overall strategic needs, rather than just combat stats. The vast majority of the time, if you can get more quality you take it, regardless of the source.

 

[PhoenixG]

I think it's more about morale damage vs unit damage when it comes to morale vs disciple. Since the moment when morale shines your units just deal shit damage. So for my feeling around tech 16.

 

[Brynjar]

+5 AT from an event will disappear without you noticing. Constant warfare is the only way to keep it up.

The AT gained from events decays at the same speed (5% of total before modifiers) regardless of amount. +5 AT from an event will still mean that 20 years later your AT is 1.88 higher than it would be without the event. For events giving 15 AT (loads of events gives 10 to 20 increase/reduction) the result is 5.66 higher AT after 20 years.

That said, a single event won't make much difference in the long run, but AT events are fairly common. If you disregard the AT they give/take as worthless, you'll struggle to keep it close to 80 unless you constantly are at war (and fighting battles), or have national ideas/traditions helping out.

 

[Aythne]

I think it's more about morale damage vs unit damage when it comes to morale vs disciple. Since the moment when morale shines your units just deal shit damage. So for my feeling around tech 16.

Technically, if you wanted to gank someone in 1444 Discipline would probably be your best bet. Sounds weird, but if you look at these numbers (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ulties-done-by-units-values-infograph.902702/) both Infantry and Cavalry deal almost as much damage at Tech 3 as they do at 16 (counting artillery support!). That changes immediately at tech 4 (with the addition of Tactics), but it only adds to @Dominion 's point that this shit is really, really contingent on the situation. Even the numbers I linked only deal with intra-Tech group combat, since different units appearing at different times throws the entire balance out the window.

 

[Brynjar]

I think it's more about morale damage vs unit damage when it comes to morale vs disciple. Since the moment when morale shines your units just deal shit damage. So for my feeling around tech 16.

When it comes to single player (which is what I believe the op is asking advise for, the AI army composition is typically so bad (lacking cannons) that morale vs. discipline doesn't really matter. What matters is that you have either of them. The below screenshot is of me (Ragusa) stacking morale vs. a fresh Brandenburg stack (full morale, no damaged regiments, no crossing/terrain penalty). I don't see how me having 10% extra discipline at the cost of 20% morale would have saved me a significant amount of men. (Yes I know my manpower is low, merchant republic neglecting manpower buildings, and invading 200+ force limit Russia with lvl 6/8 forts took care of that. I also know that my cavalry is pretty useless after 1700, unless outflanking the enemy). Rebels gaining your discipline, but not your morale makes me choose morale in most single player situations.