Here´s the place to discuss all army related issues (troop strengths, composure, building costs etc.) to be addressed within the IMPROVED GRAND CAMPAIGN. 
Hartmann
Hartmann
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Shouldn't the cost of raising infantry vs. the cost of raising cavalry be reduced/ juxtaposed for a number of nations?
In broad terms most of the muslim and exotic nations (Ottomans excepted) should have a hard time raising infantry. Even at the lowest tech level infantry represents troops with polearms trained to fight in dense formation (i.e heavy infantry) and as far as I know only the Europeans, Ottomans and Japanese produced such troops. Perhaps the Moghuls as well - they were a 'gunpowder empire' after all.
For example when I, playing the Ottomans, diplomatically annex the Crimean khanate in c. 1505 their armies are 90% infantry which seems completely off-base to me.
Vandelay
In broad terms most of the muslim and exotic nations (Ottomans excepted) should have a hard time raising infantry. Even at the lowest tech level infantry represents troops with polearms trained to fight in dense formation (i.e heavy infantry) and as far as I know only the Europeans, Ottomans and Japanese produced such troops. Perhaps the Moghuls as well - they were a 'gunpowder empire' after all.
For example when I, playing the Ottomans, diplomatically annex the Crimean khanate in c. 1505 their armies are 90% infantry which seems completely off-base to me.
Vandelay
You´re generally right and the armycosts for most Khanates already reflect this. I´m not so sure about Crimean army composure though. Maybe You (or someone) will dig out some sources?
Hartmann
Edit: I was not quite right. In the game as it is, all the Khanates have 'C' for infantry and cavalry both.
[This message has been edited by Hartmann (edited 19-02-2001).]
Hartmann
Edit: I was not quite right. In the game as it is, all the Khanates have 'C' for infantry and cavalry both.
[This message has been edited by Hartmann (edited 19-02-2001).]
I would like to suggest that Eire has the following settings
Infantry A
Calvary D
Artillary D
In this period, especially the early half Every Irish male was a trained warrior. Calvary however was very rare until the 1700s (when it was really English cavalry). Artillery was also rare.
paul.
Infantry A
Calvary D
Artillary D
In this period, especially the early half Every Irish male was a trained warrior. Calvary however was very rare until the 1700s (when it was really English cavalry). Artillery was also rare.
paul.
What does this interesting letters A B C D etc mean ? Any help, so us letterly challenged people can follow the discussion ?
Cobos
------------------
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
Cobos
------------------
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
Quick explanation: A=most expensive, D=most cheap (I don´t have the exact costs for the different army types available at the moment, though).
Hartmann
Hartmann
I think inflation takes care of making things more expensive, and low tech settings deny access to artillery early on anyways. A and B should be used for most and tech in land of 3 should only be given to the FEW, states of 1492 that had any REAL MEANINGFUL AMOUNT OF ARTILLERY AND ITS USAGE. Such as France, Turkey, and Spain.
------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon
------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon
I haven't even got the game yet, but from what I've read here, I have a question about changing the price of units:
From everything I know, Cavalry is like the scissors to infantry's paper. Unless the combat code of the game could be changed, wouldn't the price changes just give the cavalry nations the means to overrun (literally) the infantry-producing nations of Europe?
If this has already been asked an asnwered in the garagntua IGC thread, I am sorry, and may my flaming serve as a lesson to all those others of us without the patience to read all the way through 100+ post threads.
From everything I know, Cavalry is like the scissors to infantry's paper. Unless the combat code of the game could be changed, wouldn't the price changes just give the cavalry nations the means to overrun (literally) the infantry-producing nations of Europe?
If this has already been asked an asnwered in the garagntua IGC thread, I am sorry, and may my flaming serve as a lesson to all those others of us without the patience to read all the way through 100+ post threads.
Starting to second guess myself here... But to answer you're question first I'd say that in the early years of the game you could rule the battlefleld with cavalry, BUT you'd stop short at the fortifications. Later on in the game... A cavalry charge on massed arquebusiers supported with pikemen tends to be very unhealthy for the horsies. IMHO doing the changes suggested in a former post would be historically correct, but might affect game balance too greatly.
Vandelay
Vandelay´s second guessing is correct here. Also in field battles cavalry ALONE usually has no chance against infantry. It´s always the mix, which gives You an advantage. Some Khanates start out with armies solely composed of cavalry.
Hartmann
P.S.: @SteelTitan: NOONE has ever been flamed in the scenario corner, and hopefully noone ever will be.
Also in field battles cavalry ALONE usually has no chance against infantry. It´s always the mix, which gives You an advantage. Some Khanates start out with armies solely composed of cavalry.Hartmann
P.S.: @SteelTitan: NOONE has ever been flamed in the scenario corner, and hopefully noone ever will be.
Hartmann, do the editable game files allow the following:
- assigning 'veteran' status as an added strength feature for units (aside from the general)?
- discovery of the ratio of cavalry/infantry battle strength? Is it a constant or variable?
- IF variable, under what circumstances are infantry better suited than cavlary and vice-versa (according to the game)?
------------------
~ Salve ~
- assigning 'veteran' status as an added strength feature for units (aside from the general)?
- discovery of the ratio of cavalry/infantry battle strength? Is it a constant or variable?
- IF variable, under what circumstances are infantry better suited than cavlary and vice-versa (according to the game)?
------------------
~ Salve ~
hmm well. is it possible for the random leaders to get higher ranks?
i ment,, if they win alot of battle they get better?
that would be good for the minor nations wich are without Good Leaders.
------------------
-------------------------
taste Swedish Steel!
i ment,, if they win alot of battle they get better?
that would be good for the minor nations wich are without Good Leaders.
------------------
-------------------------
taste Swedish Steel!
Nope the leaders can't improve....
There isn't any veteran feature in the game at all as far as I know...
You buy your own infantry as well as cavalry, so the excact ratio depends on what you buy (or what's left of your army after the last battle, you can't know the exact ration of any army that doesn't occupy the same province as your army. Hope this answers your question ?
About the best suited, infantry gets better and better through the game, at a faster rate than cavalry, and infantry does most if its effect in the fire phase while the cavalry does it mostly in the shock phase, cavalry is good at inflicting heavy losses, useless at sieges. Infantry is good at sieges and good at braking the enemy moral, as well as cheaper so good to take the losses in (it seems most losses go to infantry first)
Cobos
------------------
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
There isn't any veteran feature in the game at all as far as I know...
You buy your own infantry as well as cavalry, so the excact ratio depends on what you buy (or what's left of your army after the last battle
, you can't know the exact ration of any army that doesn't occupy the same province as your army. Hope this answers your question ?About the best suited, infantry gets better and better through the game, at a faster rate than cavalry, and infantry does most if its effect in the fire phase while the cavalry does it mostly in the shock phase, cavalry is good at inflicting heavy losses, useless at sieges. Infantry is good at sieges and good at braking the enemy moral, as well as cheaper so good to take the losses in (it seems most losses go to infantry first)
Cobos
------------------
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
I'm not sure if this has been addressed already, but Russia begins with large numbers of troops in provinces that can't support them (especially during winter). Maybe the placement of their troops could be changed?
Cobos: okay, thanx for answering my question. i just got the game,, ,so i dont know so very much
but then again, ,, who knows what can be done? =)
when do my account uppgrade from private to something other?
i know it is when u written a number of post.. but when?
------------------
-------------------------
taste Swedish Steel!
but then again, ,, who knows what can be done? =)
when do my account uppgrade from private to something other?
i know it is when u written a number of post.. but when?
------------------
-------------------------
taste Swedish Steel!
This is also the case with many other nations. We could change this, but the problem is, that the ai tends to walk them over there again ...
Of course we can divide the troops in smaller packages, but this has it´s downsides, too.
Hartmann
can someone tell me why is it that for e.g the russian infantry preformes badly compared to the prussian ones, as i played the game where 23k inf prussian routed 78k inf russian even though prussians had lower moral and were one tech ahead, didnt had any special generals
When the game starts, Russia has a Land Military Tech Level of 1, Prussia of 2.
In historical terms, the 15th century Muscovite infantry was pretty bad. In fact, it consisted almost entirely of city militia ('Veche') and foot cossacks. During the reigns of Vasili II and Ivan II (up to 1505) the infantry was, in fact, mostly used for border watch and seiges. The basis for the field army were the mounted retainers of the Boyars, the 'dvoriane' and other feudal retinues. The only tactical use for infantry in a field battle was as a front line to absorb the first charge of enemy cavalry - in other words, 'Horse Fodder'.
In the game, your salvation as Russia is that your infantry might start as scum, but they are very, very cheap and they get much, much better faster than the cavalry does as your Land Military Tech increases.
In historical terms, the 15th century Muscovite infantry was pretty bad. In fact, it consisted almost entirely of city militia ('Veche') and foot cossacks. During the reigns of Vasili II and Ivan II (up to 1505) the infantry was, in fact, mostly used for border watch and seiges. The basis for the field army were the mounted retainers of the Boyars, the 'dvoriane' and other feudal retinues. The only tactical use for infantry in a field battle was as a front line to absorb the first charge of enemy cavalry - in other words, 'Horse Fodder'.
In the game, your salvation as Russia is that your infantry might start as scum, but they are very, very cheap and they get much, much better faster than the cavalry does as your Land Military Tech increases.