Land Combat Help (Solved)

[bunny32794]

EDIT 3:
I solved the casualty ratio problem. I've learned that Generals are super important in combat (before I never really cared for them) and also a very paradoxical tactic:
I'm a CK2 veteran so I'm used to the "doomstack" mentality of a gigantic 100k army that just marches around the map destroying everything it touches. However, one quirk of the EU4 combat system is that morale damage is dealt to all units in battle even if they're not in active combat (i.e in a 27-wide battle with 100 units only 27 take physical damage but all 100 take morale damage). This means that it's actually better to feed units into the battle piecemeal, though still in significant chunks, and by now I've perfected the technique:
1. Take a stack that maxes out the combat witdth with some reserves. Composition should be appropriate ofr tech level (I over-emphasized artillery early on when it's only good for sieges).
2. Have 1 or 2 stacks of similar size and composition nearby.
3 feed reinforcement stacks 4-8 days after combat begins.


EDIT 2:
I solved the losing battle problem; it turns out I had very low morale compared to my enemies. Now I'm roughly on part if not slightly higher and can pretty much win every battle now. The "same losses" problem still occurs though.


I will have more infantry, artillery, and cavalry than the enemy. I will have a general, and the latest in technology. I will have a terrain bonus. Then, for some reason I consistently get beaten by armies I outnumber. 60k troops get beaten by 35k and I suffer a 2.5:1 casualty ratio. What's going on?

Also, for some reason my armies will sometimes enter a fight with half morale even if they've fully recovered their morale earlier?

What am I doing wrong?

EDIT:
What do I do with depleted regiments? Do I "compact" them into full regiments or leave them damaged? What's the combat difference between 2 500-man regiments versus 1 full one and 1 dead one?

Is it just me, or are casualties in battes almost equal except when I lose? When I lose I lose big, getting results like 13k vs. 4k, but when I win I'll get 13k to 12k at best.

Lastly, and this is just an odd question, why is Warscore from battles so incrediby low compared to other Paradox games? In CK2 a single battle could swing warscore by 20 or 30%, but here a battle involving your entire military will, at most, net you 5 or 6% warscore.

[Starfoth The Burgundy Silk Rug]

Are you attacking into defensible terrain? Do you have "too much" cavalry to infantry ratio? What pips do you have compared to the enemy's pips? What is your tech group?
There's a lot that goes into this system.

[billy]

in big battles later combat width is important

So is army comp , i had copied this from a guide.......

To summarise clearly, before tech level 7:
4 cavalry
Combat width - 4 cavalry = infantry
Combat width x 50% = reserve infantry reinforcing a week after battle begins

At tech level 7:
Same as before, just add 1 artillery for sieges

At tech level 13:
Same as before, but adding full combat width of artillery

At tech level 18:
6 cavalry
Combat width - 6 cavalry = infantry
Combat width x 50% = reserve infantry reinforcing a week after battle begins
Full combat width of artillery

At tech level 23:
8 cavalry
Combat width - 8 cavalry = infantry
Combat width x 50% = reserve infantry reinforcing a week after battle begins
Full combat width of artillery

At tech level 30:
10 cavalry
Combat width - 10 cavalry = infantry
Combat width x 50% = reserve infantry reinforcing a week after battle begins
Full combat width of artillery

[BringItBoy]

Its most likely your morale of armies. I dont know exactly what tech you get higher morale but your enemy most likely has modifiers that increase its morale of armies. If it is higher than yours they will last longer in combat.

[bunny32794]

Originally posted by BringItBoy:

Its most likely your morale of armies. I dont know exactly what tech you get higher morale but your enemy most likely has modifiers that increase its morale of armies. If it is higher than yours they will last longer in combat.

I looked at enemy morale and found that they had the "Military Drill" modifier for +15%. They also have a 10% Crusader bonus.

That being said those should not be able to overcome a 2:1 numberical disadvantage and inflict a 2:1 casualty ratio. You wouldn't believe how long I've gone without winning a battle. I put my entire military of 78k into a single fresh stack, engage 32k and end up being obliterated.

Is it just me or is the combat not as good as in CK2? I have no idea how to actually win a battle.

[billy]

Originally posted by bunny32794:

Originally posted by BringItBoy:

Its most likely your morale of armies. I dont know exactly what tech you get higher morale but your enemy most likely has modifiers that increase its morale of armies. If it is higher than yours they will last longer in combat.

I looked at enemy morale and found that they had the "Military Drill" modifier for +15%. They also have a 10% Crusader bonus.

That being said those should not be able to overcome a 2:1 numberical disadvantage and inflict a 2:1 casualty ratio. You wouldn't believe how long I've gone without winning a battle. I put my entire military of 78k into a single fresh stack, engage 32k and end up being obliterated.

Is it just me or is the combat not as good as in CK2? I have no idea how to actually win a battle.

The combat is way more complicated and obtuse than CK2 , you have to take a lot of things into account.

I guarantee if you showed the battles to other players who understand the details of combat they could tell you why you lost and they wouldnt commit to those battles.

I agree with the point of your post and that battles need to convey the information to the player a lot better. Maybe theres to many little things that affect a battle , maybe some of the things arent balanced correctly. It should be a lot easier when you have played 100 hours of a game to know your 'odds' in a battle

There's more to the battles in EU4 so i would say they are much better for me as you can tweak more for an advantage. I think its subjective whether they are actually worse or better , CK2 is certainly easier to know if you will win or not.

Spend 30 mins reading how battles work , its worth it for the time you get out of the game.

[freestyler-rs]

Originally posted by bunny32794:

Originally posted by BringItBoy:

Its most likely your morale of armies. I dont know exactly what tech you get higher morale but your enemy most likely has modifiers that increase its morale of armies. If it is higher than yours they will last longer in combat.

I looked at enemy morale and found that they had the "Military Drill" modifier for +15%. They also have a 10% Crusader bonus.

That being said those should not be able to overcome a 2:1 numberical disadvantage and inflict a 2:1 casualty ratio. You wouldn't believe how long I've gone without winning a battle. I put my entire military of 78k into a single fresh stack, engage 32k and end up being obliterated.

Is it just me or is the combat not as good as in CK2? I have no idea how to actually win a battle.

morale is extremely important in the early game. morale damage is based on maximum morale of the one causing it so someone with extra morale will win A LOT of battles. It's why defensive ideas are so powerful in the early game, because of that juicy morale bonus.
regarding the losses: they depend on actual combat damage which is influenced by your ideas, your tech, mostly shock value on your troops and generals and some RNG. If the battle is roughly equal at the start, but you're up against a horde army with a decent general and their insane shock value at the start and the first combat roll in the shock phase is an enemy 9 vs. a 0 on your part, the battle is as good as lost, even with twice the numbers and you'll suffer immense casualties.

The combat system is designed to being able to simulate troop tactics and quality of the times. And while one battle might not win you a war like in earlier times, a good charge or a superior tactical approach could still win you the battle.

[Waxen]

If you take a screenshot of your next battle (make sure to include the battle screen) we'll be able to see exactly what you did wrong. From the sounds of it, your main problem is that you're hopelesly behind in technology.

The reason your morale appears to drop immediately is that your maximum morale value is lower than theirs. If one army has 3/4 of the other army's maximum morale, they will start the battle with what looks like a 3/4-full morale bar.

Depleted regiments fight at lower ability, and each regiment will only engage one opposing regiment per day in battle. If you have twice as many infantry regiments as the enemy, but they are all at half-strength, then the enemy will defeat the first group of regiments easily and be strong enough to beat the second group.

Consolidation is good when you're expecting the enemy immediately or if you can't afford to reinforce all your regiments. You should avoid it if you can because it costs more to recruit new regiments than to reinforce them.

And as always, the wiki is your friend:
http://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Land_warfare

[AllGrainGamer]

Originally posted by bunny32794:

I put my entire military of 78k into a single fresh stack, engage 32k and end up being obliterated.

I see the problem here. In a battle morale works army wide, so even though half (estimate) of your units aren't fighting they are still taking the morale damage, thus when the front line breaks they all break. If you instead split the army into 2 stakcs and then send in the second stack mid battle you will see your morale bar recover some of the loses allowing you to stay in the fight longer.

As others have said, there is a lot going on in the combat system. Don't ever expct to win just from having a bigger number.

[bunny32794]

Originally posted by AllGrainGamer:

Originally posted by bunny32794:

I put my entire military of 78k into a single fresh stack, engage 32k and end up being obliterated.

As others have said, there is a lot going on in the combat system. Don't ever expct to win just from having a bigger number.

What would be the "key" in EU4 combat? In CK2 there were basically just 2 rules:
1. specialize your army composition so you can get better "tactics" bonuses and make those obnuses apply to more of your troops (i.e. a bonus for pikemen is more likely to fire and more powerful in an army with 100% pikemen as opposed to 10%).
2. Select leaders with the highest Martial score, barring terrain or troop specialities that may also be considered.

In any case, I'm still working on CK2 logic where numbers were everything. In CK2 there was no combat width, only "flanks" which could be loaded with any number of soldiers with each one increasing the morale points and increasing the damage done to the opposing enemy flank. In short, it was the perfect realization of the Square Combat Law: Two soldiers have twice the defense and twice the attack of one soldier for 4x the combat power. This in turn means that the more you outnunmber your enemy the more likely you are to win and the bigger you win is. In CK2 I could achieve 8x or even 10x casualty ratios when spamming Light Infantry.

If anything, CK2's combat system should be horribly randomized and unfair, yet for some reason it all kind of works out. Looking at the combat system you'd imagine that an army three times the size of its opponent could be obliterated due to some ridiculous +300% bonus, and that CAN happen technically speaking, but broadly speaking given similar composition and leadership a 10k army will always defeat a 5k one.

Also, how would I take a screenshot and where would one be in my computer, and more importantly how would I upload one here? For some reason my computer has a really awful XBox thing that doesn't load screenshots but I can find screenshots from other games elsewhere.

[Rooter]

http://store.steampowered.com/news/5047/

How to screenshot

[freestyler-rs]

Originally posted by bunny32794:

Originally posted by AllGrainGamer:

As others have said, there is a lot going on in the combat system. Don't ever expct to win just from having a bigger number.

What would be the "key" in EU4 combat? In CK2 there were basically just 2 rules:
1. specialize your army composition so you can get better "tactics" bonuses and make those obnuses apply to more of your troops (i.e. a bonus for pikemen is more likely to fire and more powerful in an army with 100% pikemen as opposed to 10%).
2. Select leaders with the highest Martial score, barring terrain or troop specialities that may also be considered.

In any case, I'm still working on CK2 logic where numbers were everything. In CK2 there was no combat width, only "flanks" which could be loaded with any number of soldiers with each one increasing the morale points and increasing the damage done to the opposing enemy flank. In short, it was the perfect realization of the Square Combat Law: Two soldiers have twice the defense and twice the attack of one soldier for 4x the combat power. This in turn means that the more you outnunmber your enemy the more likely you are to win and the bigger you win is. In CK2 I could achieve 8x or even 10x casualty ratios when spamming Light Infantry.

If anything, CK2's combat system should be horribly randomized and unfair, yet for some reason it all kind of works out. Looking at the combat system you'd imagine that an army three times the size of its opponent could be obliterated due to some ridiculous +300% bonus, and that CAN happen technically speaking, but broadly speaking given similar composition and leadership a 10k army will always defeat a 5k one.

Also, how would I take a screenshot and where would one be in my computer, and more importantly how would I upload one here? For some reason my computer has a really awful XBox thing that doesn't load screenshots but I can find screenshots from other games elsewhere.

1. the combat in EU4 is regiment based. every regiment has its own combat value and morale. Cavalry has a flanking bonus that occurs when your line is wider than your enemies and they are really strong (but also really expensive) at the start of the game due to their shock value. Especially horde cavalry reigns supreme. Differing units have different base combat strength. Early to midgame ottoman units are very good, but lategame western units are the best.

Army composition, flanking and combat width, individual unit numbers and modifiers through ideas and technology impact the fight on this level. If a unit is taking losses, its combat strength drops. If during the fight your cavalry to infantry ratio surpasses your national maximum, you also take a massive hit to fighting effectiveness.

2. the actual fighting has two major aspects: damage and morale damage. What you try to do to win battles is maximize your advantages. Morale damage is really good in the early game when losses aren't that high yet and not many forts are around to prevent you from stackwiping armies without morale. A stackwipe occurs when a unit has no morale left and can't retreat yet because the necessary battle time hasn't passed yet. Since your morale damage is reliant on maximum morale, having high morale makes your enemies morale drop faster and facilitates killing his whole army.

Examples for advantages are: high army tradition, military ideas, high prestige, better units, higher tech (with the ones giving discipline being of special importance (4, 6, 7, and so on)), full morale, army composition, good generals, etc..

3. the combat itself has randomized dice rolls (with lucky nations having a slight advantage) that also get modifiers to it. Terrain and general pips come into play here. In early game an army with a 6 shock general will most likely destroy another army with twice numbers when they only have an army with 6 fire and 6 maneuver and attack them into unfavourable terrain

If you want to get beyond a general feel for the system, there's always the EUIV wiki to look stuff up, though not everything is up to date all the time because of the amount of changes in EU4 every few months.

[Admod, the Equivocal]

Morale is good for winning battles. Discipline is good for keeping people alive. With morale you'll win more battles but you'll still lose a fair amount of people if you don't have discipline. That 60k troops vs 35k. Man...attrition. O__O

The warscore factor. In ck2 you say you going to war for this province that's all you'll get. In EUIV you say you want one province and get a warscore of 100 and take 7-8. If you get a stackwipe in EUIV you'll get more warscore but if you just defeat the army once it's not going to do much for warscore. EUIV simply prioritizes holding seiges and land over fighting.

Also, in ck2 people die that you might not want to die compared to how heartless you can be with your army in EUIV.

[bunny32794]

Originally posted by Admod, the Capricorn:

Morale is good for winning battles.
Also, in ck2 people die that you might not want to die compared to how heartless you can be with your army in EUIV.

You totally can be in EU4! In CK2 force preservation was essential; wars would often follow a pattern of 1 Big Battle then simply grining down a few provinces to victory. This was because levies didn't reinforce in the field, and while replacements woul accumulate over time you ha to disband and re-raise your military to call them.

Now all forces reinforce in the field and it's a completely vali strategy to throw your men into losing battles knowing you have 100k Manpower and they have 10k.

I've solve the caualty ratio problem (have goo generals, send in forces piecemeal to bump up morale when losing), but when writing my original complaint I almost said that EU4 felt like a WWI game because it has a distinct attritional feel to it.