More realistic combat

[Tornadoli]

One thing that bugged me about EU3 was that its combat was often unrealistic. The main goal of any war is always to wipe the enemy's armed forces. In reality, how often was an army totally destroyed? In EU4, I don't think armies should be destroyed (unless maybe around 0.1% persists). One reason why wipes are so effective is that it actually costs quite a bit to rebuild those regiments, while even if only a 1k remains of an army with 40 regiments, they will rebuild for free over time. My suggestion would be to add a separate slider, something like "reinforcements", which would determine how quickly your regiments would regain people. Also, in general, reinforce speed should be slower. That would mean that a battle where you actually lose 50% of your army will hurt much more than it does in EU3 at the moment.

Another thing that could be changed is that small armies simply cannot siege. Often, small armies are a nuisance because they block provinces; in EU4, it could be done that if there are for instance only 1k soldiers in a province (or less, I don't know), then they just stand there, but no siege is initiated. The province could still function normally, recruit regiments, etc.

A great thing would also be the concept of keeping troops in a town. If there is a 1k siege force outside, I should be able to raise 3k in a city, and then launch an attack on the sieging troops. The way it is now, it is very difficult to break a siege, as new troops have very low morale. Maybe each city should be given its own, local, manpower pool for such occasion. Furthermore, garrisons could just simply be troops that are stationed in a city/town - you could take them out, put more in, etc. If you leave a town empty, its revolt risk would rise sharply, etc. Fortifications would still matter, as they could increase supply limit, defenses, etc.

I think these changes would be a good way to eliminate the classic EU3 strategy of "wipe, occupy everything with 1k regiments". It wouldn't be necessary to chase armies around anymore, and sieging with small armies could actually endanger your own success.

 

[Chamboozer]

Yeah, a defeated army retreating into friendly territory shouldn't just be destroyed if it's chased. It should auto-garrison itself in the next friendly fort so it doesn't get wiped out.

 

[Fantaisie]

Great suggestions, and they don't sound impossible to implement. I hope the developers take a look at this.

 

[nOxr]

To avoid too much micromanaging, what if there was a small garrison troop appearing automatically on the map as soon as an enemy force entered the province. They fight a battle, and after the battle it disappears again. A level 1 fort would pop up one garrison regiment, and a level 2 two regiments, etc. It would be kind of like triggered rebels raising to throw out the intruders. It would be a simple way to make enemy provinces hostile, and to avoid carpeting enemy land with small forces.

 

[unmerged(138973)]

while even if only a 1k remains of an army with 40 regiments, they will rebuild for free over time. My suggestion would be to add a separate slider, something like "reinforcements", which would determine how quickly your regiments would regain people.

Wasn't there a maintenance slider in the EUIII budget menu that did just this for armies and fleets?

 

[Chamboozer]

I assume he means that the new system in EUIV should require money to reinforce your army, rather than it being free as it is in EUIII.

To avoid too much micromanaging, what if there was a small garrison troop appearing automatically on the map as soon as an enemy force entered the province. They fight a battle, and after the battle it disappears again. A level 1 fort would pop up one garrison regiment, and a level 2 two regiments, etc. It would be kind of like triggered rebels raising to throw out the intruders. It would be a simple way to make enemy provinces hostile, and to avoid carpeting enemy land with small forces.

I really like this idea.

 

[icedt729]

Or they could just handle province occupation like in CK2, where the besieging force needs to outnumber the fort's garrison in order to lay siege. I thought that was a pretty elegant solution.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Or they could just handle province occupation like in CK2, where the besieging force needs to outnumber the fort's garrison in order to lay siege. I thought that was a pretty elegant solution.

Definitely. You shouldn't be able to conquer Paris with 1000 men.

 

[Chamboozer]

That was the case in EUIII as well, the difference is that armies reinforce in EUIII and don't in CK, making it infinitely easier to maintain the needed amount in EUIII.

 

[icedt729]

That was the case in EUIII as well, the difference is that armies reinforce in EUIII and don't in CK, making it infinitely easier to maintain the needed amount in EUIII.

Ah, right you are. But besides reinforcement CK also had the levee system, so armies had to be raised from scratch and massed for each campaign, plus garrisons grew steadily as a general part of building up a holding's military. EU just had "build fort level X" and even high-level forts didn't take all that many men to siege, relatively speaking.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Not all of the losses in combat are necessarily dead or crippled. Some will be desertions.

If you don't wipe out armies that are on the map, they are still there and hostile and able to come back and attack you/siege provinces. You need a way to remove those armies so that you can safely siege, or you need it to be easier to obtain a warscore that actually allows you to do something. After all, at the moment to take two or three core territories of yours that are held by an enemy can mean occupying 1/4 to 1/3 of that country to get enough warscore. Try doing that if you can't destroy the armies of the opposition.

With regard to sieges, how small a force should be able to lay siege to somewhere?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I think it should depend on fort size terrain and population.

 

[Tornadoli]

Wasn't there a maintenance slider in the EUIII budget menu that did just this for armies and fleets?

With my idea, there would be two different sliders. The reinforcement slider would determine how many troops would rejoin regiments (so it would be similar to actually building new troops). It should cost the same to raise a new regiment of 1k as to reinforce 1k (or very similar price). The maintenance slider would be all other things that are needed to maintain an army (ie. it would simulate food supplies, medicine, entertainment, clothes, etc.) and could affect morale, discipline, etc.

You need a way to remove those armies so that you can safely siege, or you need it to be easier to obtain a warscore that actually allows you to do something.

That is the EU3 mentality, but in reality, how often was an army completely wiped? Even if you'd win a battle, the force might be so small that it couldn't fight anymore. The reinforcement would depend on on the reinforcement slider. I just dislike the unrealistic strategy in EU3 of wipe&siege, while the sieged country could in theory still field a quite large army to defend itself. The sieging limit + giving options for cities under siege to still raise armies would help that.




Coming back to my original post, I also think that having to actually garrison new provinces would help with avoiding overextension. The way it is now, I could in theory just demand large swathes of a country, with only an arbitrary limit of warscore. In reality, one had to actually secure new conquests, and this could be represented with having to send in garrisons. If you can't secure your new conquests well (at the beginning, you might have to send in more garrisons than just 1k), then they will quickly be lost to rebels.

 

[tului]

With my idea, there would be two different sliders. The reinforcement slider would determine how many troops would rejoin regiments (so it would be similar to actually building new troops). It should cost the same to raise a new regiment of 1k as to reinforce 1k (or very similar price). The maintenance slider would be all other things that are needed to maintain an army (ie. it would simulate food supplies, medicine, entertainment, clothes, etc.) and could affect morale, discipline, etc.



That is the EU3 mentality, but in reality, how often was an army completely wiped? Even if you'd win a battle, the force might be so small that it couldn't fight anymore. The reinforcement would depend on on the reinforcement slider. I just dislike the unrealistic strategy in EU3 of wipe&siege, while the sieged country could in theory still field a quite large army to defend itself. The sieging limit + giving options for cities under siege to still raise armies would help that.




Coming back to my original post, I also think that having to actually garrison new provinces would help with avoiding overextension. The way it is now, I could in theory just demand large swathes of a country, with only an arbitrary limit of warscore. In reality, one had to actually secure new conquests, and this could be represented with having to send in garrisons. If you can't secure your new conquests well (at the beginning, you might have to send in more garrisons than just 1k), then they will quickly be lost to rebels.

You mean sort of like a conscription slider?

Another method would be a button sort of like scorching a province, but force conscript instead. Take x% of the population and turn them into soldiers, with of course lower morale etc. Regardless of what they decide, I'm sure the game will be a massive improvement.

 

[Tornadoli]

You mean sort of like a conscription slider?

Not really. It would just determine how quickly regiments would reinforce. The point would be that reinforcing should cost as much as recruiting new units.