Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Elfeater]

EU4 "Doomstacks" can have a ton of factors working against them, attrition, terrain, commanders, ideas, or tech. You just need to be smart about the battles you pick , and allies you make and call into the war.

[Greenbane]

There's also the fact manpower is a finite resource which takes years to regenerate, and if you just keep throwing "doomstacks" around without thought, you'll soon find yourself drained. It's something that can cost you a major war.

CK2 combat has less factors working behind the scenes. Terrain matters less, technology is very minor, and there's no ideas system. Composition is important to a certain extent, but it's mostly a matter of numbers and having good commanders. CK2's a great game, but its strength lies elsewhere.

[Micro102]

How do you westernize as japan? I've got a western neighbor but the event isn't even showing up.

[Sindain]

How do you westernize as japan? I've got a western neighbor but the event isn't even showing up.

You can't westernize off of trade companys, which is likely your problem. So either get a core next to them on a continent that is not Asia or Africa, or get a core next a new colony. They usually don't (at least from what I've heard) turn provinces into a trade company until a few months after completion, which gives you some time to start wosternization.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

There's also the fact manpower is a finite resource which takes years to regenerate, and if you just keep throwing "doomstacks" around without thought, you'll soon find yourself drained. It's something that can cost you a major war.

CK2 combat has less factors working behind the scenes. Terrain matters less, technology is very minor, and there's no ideas system. Composition is important to a certain extent, but it's mostly a matter of numbers and having good commanders. CK2's a great game, but its strength lies elsewhere.

Okay then. I'm not going to say this more. The combat system consists of making a 30k doomstack and then winning every war after that fact. I can show you OPM after OPM WC, because it's so easy to game the combat and ridiculous trade system of EU4. It is not a difficult game. Quit acting like having to worry about 3 numbers is complicated. You also might be surprised to know a player who knows what they're doing always picks army+naval ideas, then quality, then whatever else to fill out until exploration, because combat consists of rushing for those idea groups and doomstacking.

EU4 combat consists of you throwing a doomstack at a unit and hoping your battle doesn't get to actual shock phase. Anyone playing any other way is doing it wrong.

Go ahead, find me all the 5k vs 25k battles you've won in EU4.

Hint: You haven't. When you reach a certain threshold of troop number difference in EU4 battles always will be won by the side with the larger number. Look at the defines, I'll show you why EU4 combat consists of doomstacking:

OVERRUN_FACTOR = 10,   -- How much stronger one side of a battle must be to cause the other side to be overrun (integer)

And that's why you get doomstacks. Because if you get a certain number higher than theirs, you'll always win.

[Micro102]

How do you westernize as japan? I've got a western neighbor but the event isn't even showing up.

You can't westernize off of trade companys, which is likely your problem. So either get a core next to them on a continent that is not Asia or Africa, or get a core next a new colony. They usually don't (at least from what I've heard) turn provinces into a trade company until a few months after completion, which gives you some time to start wosternization.

I am next to provinces owned by Spain and New Spain in the new world.

[Sindain]

Okay then. I'm not going to say this more. The combat system consists of making a 30k doomstack and then winning every war after that fact. I can show you OPM after OPM WC, because it's so easy to game the combat and ridiculous trade system of EU4. It is not a difficult game. Quit acting like having to worry about 3 numbers is complicated. You also might be surprised to know a player who knows what they're doing always picks army+naval ideas, then quality, then whatever else to fill out until exploration, because combat consists of rushing for those idea groups and doomstacking.

EU4 combat consists of you throwing a doomstack at a unit and hoping your battle doesn't get to actual shock phase. Anyone playing any other way is doing it wrong.

Go ahead, find me all the 5k vs 25k battles you've won in EU4.

Hint: You haven't. When you reach a certain threshold of troop number difference in EU4 battles always will be won by the side with the larger number. Look at the defines, I'll show you why EU4 combat consists of doomstacking:

OVERRUN_FACTOR = 10,   -- How much stronger one side of a battle must be to cause the other side to be overrun (integer)

And that's why you get doomstacks. Because if you get a certain number higher than theirs, you'll always win.

Show me all those 5k vs 25k battles you've won in CK2, or any battle where you've won with a ratio of 1:10 in their favor, and no, cataphract massing does not count.

Hint: there are none.

Combat in EU4 consists of rushing idea groups and doomstacking, while combat in CK2 consists of just doomstacking, so how is CK2's combat more complex than EU4's?

I am next to provinces owned by Spain and New Spain in the new world.

Eh dunno then.

[Elfeater]

Is said province cored? - In response to the japan query.

And 5 to 25 wins?
 I've crushed natives with those odds.

as Prussia, Ive held France's army in place wit lower number, not 5-25 odds, but maybe 2-3.

Mountains, rivers and leaders can work too.

But, even historically, those odds are shit, rarely will you see a battle won like that. Look at Agincourt, the English won that through the terrain, discipline, and having a kick ass leader. Napoleon conquered with the equivalent of "Doomstacks" - Russia got him with attrition. He also faced a coalition. He lost.
And the thing about rushing those ideas is it can leave you far behind on tech, you will bleed points into the ideas.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Show me all those 5k vs 25k battles you've won in CK2, or any battle where you've won with a ratio of 1:10 in their favor, and no, cataphract massing does not count.

Hint: there are none.

Combat in EU4 consists of rushing idea groups and doomstacking, while combat in CK2 consists of just doomstacking, so how is CK2's combat more complex than EU4's?

1. Dice rolls are the entirety of EU4 combat
2. Flanks

And yes, tell me about all those 5v25 battles I haven't won in CK2. You might be surprised to find that strategy [especially learning how to use chokepoints] is important in CK2. Meanwhile EU4, you look for a mountain or a river and avoid it. That's the strategy. Unless you're like me and know how the mechanics work that even a 10k group on a mountain will get insta-wiped against 50k, no matter what the bonuses may be.

[Elfeater]

There is a deep flanking system in EU4

[Sindain]

1. Dice rolls are the entirety of EU4 combat
2. Flanks

1.Soooooooooooo if dice rolls are the entirety of EU4 combat does that mean doomstacking is irrelevant?
2. We have to worry about army comp in EU4 as well, and EU4 has  a helluva lot more than 3 spots where troops can be placed in battle.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

There is a deep flanking system in EU4

No, there really isn't.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

1. Dice rolls are the entirety of EU4 combat
2. Flanks

1.Soooooooooooo if dice rolls are the entirety of EU4 combat does that mean doomstacking is irrelevant?
2. We have to worry about army comp in EU4 as well, and EU4 has  a helluva lot more than 3 spots where troops can be placed in battle.

I'm going to help and explain it slowly. The battles in EU4 are based on 0-8 rolls of a dice. The reason for this is hard to explain, as CK2 uses an actual battle system based on general competency and flanking. In the context on EU4, if you get into a *real* battle against the AI you're going to lose exorbitant amounts of troops/morale despite having superior morale, discipline and pips, ideas, etc. That is why you make doomstacks, to trigger the 'overrun' insta-wipe battles as to not get shafted by the bull battle system that gives you -1k troops in every shock day.

This is hardcoded into EU4. Overrun factor. The number is displayed to you. Numbers of troops are the most important part of EU battle calculation.

Meanwhile, in CK2, there is no hardcoded overrun factor. A group of 5k soldiers can, and will, attempt to hold out against 50k if they are good soldiers under a strong nation.

[Elfeater]

The argument about rolls applies to CK2 as well, maneuvers are the equivalent. Giving random, to an extent, bonuses to units.
With commanders in EU4, you make the battles less random, making your rolls "weighted", as can assigning commanders with certain traits and martial score in CK2.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Yeah, you need commanders for all the 0 rolls you'll always be getting. That's the neat part of the dice system. No reliability. So you rely on insta-wipe battles. That's the part that irks me so badly about EU4. The combat is not consistent. You can have the best military across the board and still be losing 1k troops a day in every shock phase because the AI has a +1 advantage in the random number roll that combat consists of.