Originally posted by Alerias
Assaults it is then.
Even in MP, I loathe quantity/defensive. I love my shock and morale too much, and quality leads to alot less attrition losses...
How does quality lead to less attrition?
Originally posted by Alerias
Assaults it is then.
Even in MP, I loathe quantity/defensive. I love my shock and morale too much, and quality leads to alot less attrition losses...
Originally posted by KwangTiger
Well, in sheer numbers, It would reduce the attrition. (Because 50000 units would have steeper losses (Numerically, not proportionally) to 10000 units....
But other then that I dunno
Originally posted by Alerias
Yeah I see your point. I might go back some towards Quant, my russian infantery costs 10 ducats now.![]()
As for lower attrition, having larger armies do not raise the supply limits of provinces right?Well that leads to attrition problems for me, unless what you guys do is typically have same size armies fielded anyway and just recruit all the time during the war thus winning the "attrition" war?
The way I was seeing it you were massing 100,000 soldier armies to outmatch smaller but better ones. Shrugs.
Money is not a problem with some countries though. Everyone says France rocks as quantity, but against the AI, umph... Its 1530 in my French Game, GC, I have all the east coast of the US and Canada colonized, beat the Spanish and the portugeuse out of america, got the indians out of central america, conquered india using early provinces there, and in Europe, I have Iberia vassalized, letting them colonize somewhere else before I annex, conquered England, the HRE, parts of the Balkans, all of Italy, and all west africa. Well, my point; I have maxed quality, im mostly naval for colonists, more towards free than serf, yet I pay strictly no attention to costs while recruiting, just manpower, which is plenty large either way. Of course im just on Hard so I dont have to deal with real BB wars...
Originally posted by Bavarian King
Don't you just get fed up reading how good people are in terms of capturing huge slices of the map?![]()
Its so easy to boast on a message board about how good you are, when there is no way to prove it! Also, not everyone has the time to play the game for hours every single day, thereby learning the game inside out. Whilst it can be important as part of a thread to talk about how you are doing, sometimes it is just such blatant boasting.
The same applies in this post which is meant to be about the effects of winter.
As has been mentioned, playing as France is relatively easy due to the number of resources, although in a past game I played, France were totally annihilated. It is literally possible, within the different continents, for any nation to emerge dominant.
An unfortunate thing that seems to be mildly prevalent amongst some people on here is snobbishness against new/newer players. Remember, everyone starts off as a new player, and not everyone has time to learn a game inside out! I do try to myself, if its one I get involved in that is.
Anyway, its an enjoyable game to play, and is interesting for the above mentioned fact, that a large nation such as France is not guaranteed to be successful. Also, that it is not necessarily down to the human player to influence this as the AI can cause many variations.
Originally posted by DoctorPlague
Hehe, can't we just put them in randomly?
What the #¤%* does this one mean? --->![]()
Originally posted by Thanak
I think that England is even easier. You start with English and French culture, Henry and Bedford. Beating the french is pretty much a nobrainer in the 1419 scenario.