Artillery.......?

[merlin2199]

I am a bit confused about the use of artillery in the game. Is it used simply for sieges, or is it also field artillery which can easyly move on the battlefield and induce loss of morale on the enemy by its mere presence (just like it used to back in the good old time )

------------------
'...I shall not rest until the entire world is covered in English red...'

 

[Johan]

You can use it for both... but its slow, costs a fortune and i wouldn't want to risk it against a large amount of cavalry early in the game.


/Johan who is a swede and follows the old karolin tactic..

 

[unmerged(13)]

I rarely use artillery with my field armies. Much of it is lost through the general attrition of long marches. Especially if you play as Poland / France, Spain or Turkey from the start. Many countries employ lots of cavalry, and cavalry absolutely destroyes artillery.

There are times however when I do stage invasions with lots of artillery in field battles. However its better to have two armies.


1) Field army, attacks other moving enemy field armies, composed mostly of cavalry and infantry. Either 3:1, or 2:1 infantry based.

2) 2nd army, small amount of infantry (at least) and 100+ artillery pieces that will come up and join your field army after it hopefully defeats the first opposition.


Sapura

 

[merlin2199]

Thanks alot guys. I just realized reading your replies that it wasn't until Napoleon came around that artillery began to serve the purpose I had intended to assign to it in the game; but the game ends just before that Still, I think I should follow your advice Sap. Besides, cavalry seems to do the job just fine by flanking the enemy. Yet, speaking of cavalry, what about battles fought on difficult terrain(maountains, swamps, and so on...)

------------------
'...I shall not rest until the entire world is covered in English red...'

 

[unmerged(13)]

Terrain matters a lot ...swamps and mountainous, forest terrain = problem for the cavalry.

This is a generalisation though since EU only has one 'type' of cavalry (i.e. there are no actual named differences, i.e. rajtars and hussars), this is how it is.

In reality some light cavalry, such as tartars, cossack, pancerni were good at attacking in built up areas, such as woods. Especially setting up ambushes. Since this level of combat can't be recreated in EU (EU2 maybe?), you'll just have to settle for that. Still, easier to remember

Sapura

 

[merlin2199]

Ok, so I have another little question Sorry if I am bothering, but I want to have all the tactical phase of the military cleared up. In difficult terrain, would it make sense to bring the 'heavy army' (infantry+artillery) instead of the 'light army' (infantry+cavalry) since cavalry is somewhat neutralized? Or, combine some of the infantry and cavalry of the light army together with the heavy army to fight on dificult terrain? I think about this since artillery is very slow and has very little mobility. Since these battles are usually going to be head on encounters due to the terrain, I thought artillery could play a role here. What is your expert opinion on this matter ?

------------------
'...I shall not rest until the entire world is covered in English red...'

 

[unmerged(13)]

I think its best to take a look at the round picture, rather than worrying about the attrition death of a few men in any special province

Look at the general terrain of your country? Is it mostly plains? Is it mostly mountain? Have a good look and decide accordingly. The other important thing to remember when waging war is the season factor. During winter the figures for attrition on march / during sieges in foreign countries (esp when out of supply) are utterly horrendous. Especially in Muscovite-Russia.

I usually dont go into such detail as to make several different armies in regards to the terrain, I just make adjustements to the number and type of regiments I construct. If I'm going to be fighting a defensive war, -> lots of cavalry and infantry. If I want to take territory, a good proportion of all three, leaning more closely towards infantry and artillery. However, be sure to play with it in the step I did earlier in the topic. Have two armies, one infantry / cavalry based which is mobile, and one with infantry and artillery only.. trudging behind the front lines waiting for its larger partner to clear territory of offensive troops.


Sap.

 

[merlin2199]

Thanks alot Sap. You see I was not fortunate enough to be a beta tester, so I wanted to familiarisize myself with the combat stage of the game. I want to be sure of how to keep my provinces whilst being capable of taking territory when needed. Thank You for answering my third question before I even had a chance to ask it The game still has not arrived...it should be here today and I am so anxeous it is not even funny Well, thanks again and which me luck B-)

------------------
'...I shall not rest until the entire world is covered in English red...'

 

[maurice]

My experiences to date show that -
1. the general's ability is most important - don't expect to win against a superior general
2. for field battles - cavalry in the 16thC is supreme, infantry in the 18th. At the start of the game infantry is only good for sieges.
3. as Sap says, keep the artillery in the siege train
4. troop quality i.e. tech level is more important than numbers

My feeling is that combat is all about breaking the enemy's morale - and the +/- factors (generals, tech level, current morale etc) are more important than troop numbers.

Also use your general's strength. If you general has poor firepower ratings, building inf is pointless. If shock is his stength, go for cavalry.

I'm not sure if the data files are viewable in the release version, but you could see the combat factors for each tech level in the beta version. They are in comma-delimited .csv files.

 

[unmerged(232)]

Originally posted by maurice:
1. the general's ability is most important - don't expect to win against a superior general.

Are there a way to see whether or not an enemy army (or fleet) is commanded by a leader?

kdp

 

[unmerged(13)]

1. the general's ability is most important - don't expect to win against a superior general.

Not necessarily, Maurice. A great leader has the ability to win victory with less troops at his command. In this way one doesn't have to conscript 100,000k forces to take territory. On the other hand a lower / random leader, though not having the bonuses of the historically good ones can still be victorious. What counts here is

a) Advantage in manpower over the enemy general.

b) Advantage in moral.

c) Advantage in technology.

The last two are basically the same.. but still. Though it is possible to win against the best generals with only random generals, don't expect it to be an easy victory. It'd be silly if it was _impossible_ to win against the general with superior bonuses all the time. In this way, Poland would have annexed Muscovy. Denmark would have annexed Sweden. France would have invaded and annexed England.. Turkey would have taken the whole of central Europe / a long with the Balkans.

Sapura

 

[unmerged(158)]

I am not so sure if cavallry was really so important in the age of EU. At least in western europe the age of cavallry was over with the creation of pikemen. And thereafter the western european armies where mainly a mix of pikemen and crossbowmen/musketeers. But this is not so important for gameplay. With the English I nearly lose all landbattles against Spain if the odds are not 3:1 (I am leading in army technology).No matter what is the mix of my army. As a consequence I have to conduct landwar by attrition. Wich is also a challenge and might be also be realistic because Spain had the best infantry at that time. Not because of technology but because of discipline and spirit.

 

[unmerged(13)]

Wasn't as popular in the west, though it remained so in the east.

Since EU encompasses all of Europe, what does it matter.


Sapura

 

[unmerged(349)]

Originally posted by Peter Bollmann:
I am not so sure if cavallry was really so important in the age of EU. At least in western europe the age of cavallry was over with the creation of pikemen. And thereafter the western european armies where mainly a mix of pikemen and crossbowmen/musketeers. But this is not so important for gameplay. With the English I nearly lose all landbattles against Spain if the odds are not 3:1 (I am leading in army technology).No matter what is the mix of my army. As a consequence I have to conduct landwar by attrition. Wich is also a challenge and might be also be realistic because Spain had the best infantry at that time. Not because of technology but because of discipline and spirit.

I know how you feel. I have been playing a GC as Venice, and I periodically lose battles to inferior numbers of REBELS! Oh, well. The best way to defeat armies that are that much better than you is to use wave attacks--you send in a large army to fight it out with the enemy, when that army has almost lost the battle, send in a smaller army. Your first army loses and retreats. Your second army arrives to find a victorious, but exhausted enemy, who you proceed to route... most of the time.

I rarely use cavalry. It is too expensive and when you are fighting a war of attrition it is better to let your enemy waste his money on large bodies of cavalry who will be useless against your fortresses anyway. And when you lose 3 out of 4 land battles you engage in, why would you purchase cavalry that is only going to disappear in the marches and retreats. Of course, I rarely see the AI use much cavalry, either. In my wars against Poland and Turkey, I never saw any cavalry, just infantry and artillery.

------------------
'Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,
How you awake our sleeping sword of war.
We charge you in the name of God, take heed;
For never two such kingdoms did contend
Without much fall of blood...'
Henry V (a la Shakespeare)

[This message has been edited by von Curow (edited 07-11-2000).]

 

[Generalfeldmarschall]

i was wondering, which country can build the cheapest infantry regiments? also, is there a limit to how many men can be in an army? if so, what is the limit?