Print

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

[pedrito]

Because even with superior pips, morale, discipline, techs, ideas, you will get ridiculous casualties and morale damage against even a pitiful nation with 1:1 ratios of soldiers on flat lands.

Because the battle system is broken and heavily favors AI getting no damage.

So you are forced to doomstack.

That doesn't happen to me.
Battles between equal nations result in more or less the same casualties on each side.
If this happens to you, I insists that you don't really understand the combat system and fail to factor in something.
It can't be that for some magical reason you get to lose battles that I win. And most of my friends who have 100+ hours on EUIV don't run into these problems either.

And the nail in the coffin for EU4's combat system? It can't even simulate history correctly, which is the whole point of the game. Yes, that is the case of an army of 70000 being beaten by an army of 10000-15000, that is quite literally impossible to achieve in-game no matter how hard you try, unless you give crazy tech advantages and such to the smaller army. Even if they were only slightly off tech-wise and given a much greater discipline boost, it wouldn't make a difference.

About 3-5 tech levels difference, and an excellent general vs a mediocre one, added to a -2 from terrain should be enough to achieve this.
It's been done numerous times.

Making a complicated battle system is not good when you combine it with the fact that you can only learn about these things after you lose and go to wiki to find out what's going on.

Games in general should not rely on some external sources of information.

Welcome to the DF forums mate.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Obviously I haven't played enough EU4, thank you for finding the error of my ways. I'll stick to EU3 and CK2.

[Sergarr]

If I wanted to play a super-complicated war game, I'd play HoI 3. EU is supposed to be about diplomacy and colonialism. In EU IV these are basically timers.

[a1s]

And the nail in the coffin for EU4's combat system? It can't even simulate history correctly, which is the whole point of the game. Yes, that is the case of an army of 70000 being beaten by an army of 10000-15000, that is quite literally impossible to achieve in-game no matter how hard you try, unless you give crazy tech advantages and such to the smaller army. Even if they were only slightly off tech-wise and given a much greater discipline boost, it wouldn't make a difference.

About 3-5 tech levels difference, and an excellent general vs a mediocre one, added to a -2 from terrain should be enough to achieve this.
It's been done numerous times.

Indeed no general at all (he 'died in the battle') +better troops for 14th century Ottoman Vs. Eastern, +river crossing + terrain (it's all hills). This is, honestly, just a couple of good rolls away from happening.

[Greenbane]

And the nail in the coffin for EU4's combat system? It can't even simulate history correctly, which is the whole point of the game. Yes, that is the case of an army of 70000 being beaten by an army of 10000-15000, that is quite literally impossible to achieve in-game no matter how hard you try, unless you give crazy tech advantages and such to the smaller army. Even if they were only slightly off tech-wise and given a much greater discipline boost, it wouldn't make a difference.

About 3-5 tech levels difference, and an excellent general vs a mediocre one, added to a -2 from terrain should be enough to achieve this.
It's been done numerous times.

Indeed no general at all (he 'died in the battle') +better troops for 14th century Ottoman Vs. Eastern, +river crossing + terrain (it's all hills). This is, honestly, just a couple of good rolls away from happening.

To further add to the plausibility, in EU4 terms, the base combat width is 15 (and the 14th century can't be higher than tech 1), which means a maximum of 15,000 men can be effective in battle at any one time, between front and back ranks. The hilly terrain imposes a 25% penalty on width, which reduces the effective fighting strength to 11,250. The vast majority of the 70k-strong attacking army wouldn't be able to take part in the battle simultaneously, which means that given enough favourable factors, the defenders have a real chance to hold their ground and deplete the enemy morale.

The game doesn't benefit the AI in combat, but it is easier to defend than it is to attack. I suppose that an impression of AI advantage might come from the fact the AI is usually defending, as it doesn't tend to attack, sensibly enough, unless it thinks it can win. This advantage can be exacerbated by lucky nation bonuses, if those are in play. Casualties are to be expected unless there's a massive difference in technology and everything that implies, and in any case it's generally unwise to launch an attack without outnumbering the enemy significantly (2:1 or 3:1 at least).

[Sergarr]

And the nail in the coffin for EU4's combat system? It can't even simulate history correctly, which is the whole point of the game. Yes, that is the case of an army of 70000 being beaten by an army of 10000-15000, that is quite literally impossible to achieve in-game no matter how hard you try, unless you give crazy tech advantages and such to the smaller army. Even if they were only slightly off tech-wise and given a much greater discipline boost, it wouldn't make a difference.

About 3-5 tech levels difference, and an excellent general vs a mediocre one, added to a -2 from terrain should be enough to achieve this.
It's been done numerous times.

Indeed no general at all (he 'died in the battle') +better troops for 14th century Ottoman Vs. Eastern, +river crossing + terrain (it's all hills). This is, honestly, just a couple of good rolls away from happening.

To further add to the plausibility, in EU4 terms, the base combat width is 15 (and the 14th century can't be higher than tech 1), which means a maximum of 15,000 men can be effective in battle at any one time, between front and back ranks. The hilly terrain imposes a 25% penalty on width, which reduces the effective fighting strength to 11,250. The vast majority of the 70k-strong attacking army wouldn't be able to take part in the battle simultaneously, which means that given enough favourable factors, the defenders have a real chance to hold their ground and deplete the enemy morale.

The game doesn't benefit the AI in combat, but it is easier to defend than it is to attack. I suppose that an impression of AI advantage might come from the fact the AI is usually defending, as it doesn't tend to attack, sensibly enough, unless it thinks it can win. This advantage can be exacerbated by lucky nation bonuses, if those are in play. Casualties are to be expected unless there's a massive difference in technology and everything that implies, and in any case it's generally unwise to launch an attack without outnumbering the enemy significantly (2:1 or 3:1 at least).

Wait, if there's a width thing in play, then how and why does the OVERRUN thing works?

[WealthyRadish]

Being forced into rushing for army/discipline ideas and tech doesn't make EU4s combat system complicated, it just shows how broken and lopsided all the calculations are to the AI side if your high-tech highly disciplined tactically advanced military can and does take massive morale and casualty damage in every shock battle phase, as is totally historical, right? That superior formation, tactics, morale, etc militaries are forced to outnumber weaker foes simply because 1:1 is an easy way to get your stack wiped.

?

I'm just going to disregard this, since it's wrong. Maybe if you're fighting native americans or something you can inflict enough casualties in the first 9 days to go over OVERRUN_FACTOR_CANNOT_LEAVE, but you're obviously just exaggerating or don't understand what's happening.

That's what you don't understand. That's why you don't see an issue with EU4s incredibly boring battle system where numbers are the most important factor. Because you play it straight and probably get huge casualties. And wonder why I do things like make every battle insta-wipe to save the always-retreating ping pong [then getting morale damage attacking a shattered retreating army who has .01 morale because they aren't allowed to insta-wipe for some reason].

Lower SHATTERED_RETREAT_SPEED_MODIFIER from 0.5 to 0.3 or something if you don't like chasing armies as much. May also consider changing LOW_MORALE_THRESHOLD and CANNOT_RETREAT_DAYS if you want armies to fight longer/shorter before retreating.

Obviously didn't read my post, so I'll say it again, you should raise OVERRUN_FACTOR_CANNOT_LEAVE to 3 or 4 so wipes only happen over that ratio. It's also not just this value at work... it also either requires a certain number of casualties or a threshold of calculated advantage.

Because the battle system is broken and heavily favors AI getting no damage.

No?

So you are forced to doomstack.

Early game when there are fewer factors at work, yeah, numbers are important, but try beating Poland-Lithuania as Teutonic Order, or beating France as England in the HYW. Obviously outnumbered grossly, but it just means you've got to be play carefully and have a strategy.

So all battles are insta-wipes [or atleast you hope].

Because even with superior pips, morale, discipline, techs, ideas, you will get ridiculous casualties and morale damage against even a pitiful nation with 1:1 ratios of soldiers on flat lands.

So you make a huge doomstack and no longer have to worry about these fucked up, stupid calculations.

?

Again, I think you're either grossly exaggerating or don't understand it. I'm guessing you never use mercenaries? If you don't want to ever use mercenaries, consider raising MAX_MANPOWER to 20 or something, so you can have more reserves for a planned difficult war. Just keep in mind that it'll also apply to France.

Do you understand why EU4 has a bad war system? Because numbers are the entirety of the calculation outside of horseshit dice rolls that the player needs to game in order to get anything useful out of.

Dicerolls aren't that important, but again, since you didn't read my post, try playing for a bit with COMBAT_DICE_SIDE set to 1. The scenario I recommend is the vanilla start as France, since you'll have a nice doomstack right next to a smallish English army. I agree that 10 sides is a bit much, but they really are needed. Tweak it to where you find it fun, I'd recommend 6-8.

Can we please stop pretending EU4 has a complicated battle system? It's build a huge stack or build more huge stacks to combat according to actual rules because the calculations are heavily against you. Also, the extent of 'flanking' in EU4 consists of.. building 6-8 mounted units and putting them in a doomstack. Man, that's some high strategy.

Thing is it actually is pretty complicated, just with little direct player involvement. There's a lot to consider that isn't obvious, like the effect of maneuver, combat width, moraledisciplineleadershipterrainmilitarytactics and so on. It's definitely more complicated than HoI3's combat, it's just that HoI has more precise stats. If you're looking for a tactical game, where each battle can be fought with direct player involvement, there are tons of fantasy games that do that. Personally, since there are so many battles in EU, I think it'd be tedious.

And the nail in the coffin for EU4's combat system? It can't even simulate history correctly, which is the whole point of the game. Yes, that is the case of an army of 70000 being beaten by an army of 10000-15000, that is quite literally impossible to achieve in-game no matter how hard you try, unless you give crazy tech advantages and such to the smaller army. Even if they were only slightly off tech-wise and given a much greater discipline boost, it wouldn't make a difference.

With certain terrain it's doable in EUIV, even with equal tech.

Maybe the game isn't meeting your expectations in some regards, but I think you're just blowing up some things that could be easily changed on your own. If you find that you lose too much manpower, use mercenaries, take loans, maybe increase the max manpower that can be saved up. If you find that you don't like chasing shattered armies, lower their speed bonus. If you find that you're tempted to go for instant wipes every time and find it boring, change the "hardcoded" ratio that makes it possible. If you think the dice are too random, reduce its range. There are tons of valid criticisms that can be made of this game, mainly for things that can't be changed, but your complaints are invalid when the solutions are easy and staring right at you.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Yeah, it should really be up to the player to wrestle some sense out of the system. You also mis-attributed your last quote there.

[EnigmaticHat]

Saying EU IV's combat is more complicated than HoI 3 is both wrong and kind of missing the point.

First of all, the a lot of those many stats are the same as EU IV but more naunced.  For example units in EU IV have a commander, units in HoI 3 have a direct commander, and up to 4 high command members giving that commander orders.  Combats in EU IV have a combat width, combats in HoI 3 have a combat width which is increased if the unit is fighting along the borders of multiple provinces.  Ect. Ect.

Also HoI 3 was made with an understanding that all other Paradox GSGs lack, which is that unit choice shouldn't be about composition, it should be about role.  Calvalry, infantry and artillery in EU IV all move at the same speed and there is a fairly hardcoded "ideal" formula.  This is infantry= x+spare, cavalry = x*tech group cav percentage, artillery = expected combat width, where spare is the amount of infantry you expect to die, and x is either a number you think won't put you over your supply limit, or your land forcelimit if you can fight a large enemy army in a defense war and then move reinforcements in.  There is only a weak element of choice to it.  Whereas cavalry (well, armor), infantry and artillery all fill different roles in HoI3.  Infantry is generically most useful, armor is fast and effective for its combat width, allowing them to break into enemy lines and quickly claim territory, artillery ignores combat width and is thus ideal for slugfests where both sides use their entire combat width.  Then there's all sorts of detail on top of that, like anti-tank artillery which sucks on offense and mainly work on tanks, and planes which have their own mechanics.  And all that stuff about envelopment (I still haven't managed to actually wipe out enemy units yet).

Like don't get me wrong, HoI 3 is probably the least fun of all Paradox GSGs, and EU IV does ok compared to the others (except CK 2 because its results are more intuitive to me) but its military sim is way beyond EU IV even though its an older game.

[WealthyRadish]

Yeah, it should really be up to the player to wrestle some sense out of the system. You also mis-attributed your last quote there.

Eh, if you don't want to change a few integers, don't. Hopefully you do though, I think it'd fix most of your complaints, and it's easy stuff. Sorry about the misquote.

I haven't played as much HoI or dived into modding it, so for some reason I assumed it was simpler. The role point is great, I wish there was more of that in EU. There's some minor bits of it with siege groups, chasing groups with no artillery, main doomstacks, but yeah, it's a shame the focus is mostly on composition. Though they are very different settings, so I dunno how that'd work.

[stabbymcstabstab]

Yeah HOI system is way better then EU's, even if HOI3 system is a little wonky.

[EnigmaticHat]

HoI 3 is annoying because you can either start from the beginning, tediously re-arrange your force structure so that you know what everything is, and then slowly build up tech and units while having basically no effect on the game until war breaks out.  OR you can pick a later start date, and jump into war using a mess of units (all divided into theatres, army groups, armies, corps, and divisions which are rather annoying to edit) that you have basically no control of the composition or placement of.  So I wouldn't get too annoyed about EU IV's system.  At least mercenaries and ordinary troops have different roles (expendable vs. cheap respectively), and there's some minor differences when it comes to defensive or offensive pips.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Hey guys I have a great Kochin game going after learning some tricks from the DDRjake stream. I'm getting to the point where I'll have to think about colonial nations. Anyone have any ideas for names? I don't really want Malayalam Australia.

Spoiler: big image (click to show/hide)

[Sheb]

Australia comes from the Latin for "Australis" which mean southern. In Malayalam (the language of the Kingdom of Cochin), south is  തെക്ക് (Thekku), and land is കര or kara (or nilam or mannu, I just looked up dictionnaries and I'm not sure what the nuances are.)

So Thekkunilam would be nice I think.

[mainiac]

I have seen the AI roflstomped by coalitions when it expands aggressively.  Players just tend to be better at racking up AE becaue they have a human brain.