The Scale of Warfare

[Ashantai]

I love EU3, as many do, but there is one thing that has been bugging me since the beginning.

War is a central part of EU3, but it is often quite weirdly scaled. In EU3 the armies of western Europe are frequently much larger than their historical selves, but on the other hand the nations of Asia and Eastern Europe are usually much smaller than historical versions. I refer to say the Ottoman, Ming or Mamluk armies which easily numbered in the tens of thousands or more, yet in EU3 it's not possible to build more than 40 regiments as the Ottomans in 1453.

However, in the late game the problem is reversed. I have never, in all my games, seen a larger single AI force than 80,000, and that was very rare indeed. One never sees the 18th and 19th century armies which one might expect. There is certainly no Austerlitz, let alone a Leipzig ever possible.

I'm not sure how one would rectify this, but it's clear that the scaling is a bit off.

 

[adam_grif]

War is a central part of EU3, but it is often quite weirdly scaled. In EU3 the armies of western Europe are frequently much larger than their historical selves, but on the other hand the nations of Asia and Eastern Europe are usually much smaller than historical versions. I refer to say the Ottoman, Ming or Mamluk armies which easily numbered in the tens of thousands or more, yet in EU3 it's not possible to build more than 40 regiments as the Ottomans in 1453.

40 regiments is 40,000 men, which is indeed "tens of thousands"

 

[Jaws210]

I think what he meant is how nations like the Ottomans were able to field almost 100 thousand men while the largest contemporary European armies could only field little more than ten thousand as was the situation in the 15-16th century.

 

[Ashantai]

But not as many tens of thousands as they regularly fielded....

EDIT: Thanks Jaws.

 

[Taiisatai64]

Yes, this got worse in Divine Wind with the China nerfs. Ming could, during the timeframe, field standing armies of up to 1 million men (1000 regiments), yet they cannot do that in-game without building many conscription centers, and actually don't have enough provinces to be able to match the West building for building.

 

[Plushie]

I can't help but think of the book I'm reading: It's a history of the Thirty Year's War and it almost over-emphasizes the point that keeping ~100,000 men in the field at a time (including fortress garrisons) broke Germany as an economy and as a demography for centuries. Meanwhile, in EU3, Austria at a contemporary start-point (1619ish) can embody 120k man armies without breaking a sweat, not including garrison forces.

So yeah, I'm on board with this. The Ottomans were a threat to all of Christendom because they could regularly put together armies of 50-80,000 men for a campaign season (and absolutely wreck the Balkans in the process). In EU3, 50-80,000 men is just one Ottoman stack. Austria in EU3 can field 50,000 man armies without noticing the expense while keeping a mobile force of 20,000 forced the Hapsburgs to dive extremely deeply into debt in real life.

 

[Van Diemen]

This is a problem though. However, the game needs to be balanced besides realistic, which is always a thin line to walk.

 

[Ashantai]

Which is where greater diversity of unit stats between countries comes in. A lot of the Ottoman troops were light armed infantry and cavalry, and this should be represented as well.

 

[Chamboozer]

Logistics would have to play a role if armies are going to be historically sized. A good logistic system representing the difficulty of sustaining a year-round siege of a 16th Century fortress would help a lot in slowing down expansion.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

This is a problem though. However, the game needs to be balanced besides realistic, which is always a thin line to walk.

Seeing how completely unbalanced EU3 was I don't see how just throwing everything out for more historical numbers could hurt.

 

[CaptRobau]

Logistics would have to play a role if armies are going to be historically sized. A good logistic system representing the difficulty of sustaining a year-round siege of a 16th Century fortress would help a lot in slowing down expansion.

Trade routes could help a lot with that, as that points to the posibility of more in depth logistical lines.

 

[Cybvep]

Logistics would have to play a role if armies are going to be historically sized. A good logistic system representing the difficulty of sustaining a year-round siege of a 16th Century fortress would help a lot in slowing down expansion.

This. Logistics is the key to a balanced and realistic game IMO.

 

[Rauchen]

I think what he meant is how nations like the Ottomans were able to field almost 100 thousand men while the largest contemporary European armies could only field little more than ten thousand as was the situation in the 15-16th century.

Actually, even the smaller, Balkan states were able to put together relatively large armies even in the 15th century. In the Battle of Vaslui, Stefan of Moldavia fielded an army of 40,000 Moldavians and 7,000 others against an army of 120,000 Ottomans and 20,000 Bulgarians. Who here has EVER seen Moldavia put 47,000 soldiers together?

 

[A_Dane]

Actually, even the smaller, Balkan states were able to put together relatively large armies even in the 15th century. In the Battle of Vaslui, Stefan of Moldavia fielded an army of 40,000 Moldavians and 7,000 others against an army of 120,000 Ottomans and 20,000 Bulgarians. Who here has EVER seen Moldavia put 47,000 soldiers together?

Uh uh ! I have ! But that game was a freak of nature.. was playing in India, when I finally got to look around europe in the 1600's it was shocking. Moldavia had gobbled up most of the balks, and lorraine (yes, lorraine), was the undisputed master of Germany and France.

I have no idea how it came to be, but both of them were freaking monsters. Moldavia fielded around 67k men -.-

 

[Rauchen]

Uh uh ! I have ! But that game was a freak of nature.. was playing in India, when I finally got to look around europe in the 1600's it was shocking. Moldavia had gobbled up most of the balks, and lorraine (yes, lorraine), was the undisputed master of Germany and France.

I have no idea how it came to be, but both of them were freaking monsters. Moldavia fielded around 67k men -.-

Yeah, I saw a freakishly large Pommeranian empire in northern Germany and Scandinavia and a Brittany-dominated France in my Japan game...weird shit happens to Europe when you play as an Asian country. But I was speaking from a Eurocentric standpoint.

 

[WeissRaben]

Yes, size should matter LESS, as for army size - we are not talking about mass conscription, after all, and many nation could field tens of thousands of soldiers even if they were...small. Apart from the already reported Moldavian army, Vlad Tepes of Wallachia fielded 30.000 men against the Turks.

 

[Rauchen]

And let's not lose sight of the fact that very few nations kept a massive, standing army; Moldavia didn't maintain 40,000 soldiers in peacetime. They might have...eh, 10,000, maybe more? They would levy a much larger force for war, and when peace came, most of those troops would go back home. Even into the 1700s, with the professional Prussian army, the soldiers weren't on hand at all times; they would go and work odd jobs in their home town until the next war. Since countries like Wallachia and Moldavia have a max manpower of only, what, 1,000-5,000, its not at all possible for them to quickly levy a large enough force to defend themselves.

 

[Marco Dandolo]

I think one point is the manpower-pool. In real history, most wars were decided with mercenaries. The whole Italian wars and also the 30 years war, were fought by those troops. But in EU, I didn't even recruit one time since 2007 a mercenary-regiment, because I had enough manpower. War should be more costly and more intense, regarding that, because mercenary really ate the land where they marched.

 

[Chamboozer]

Mercenaries (in Western Europe) should be the cavalry-killer, to represent the adoption of Swiss pike tactics.

 

[Tornadoli]

Logistics would have to play a role if armies are going to be historically sized. A good logistic system representing the difficulty of sustaining a year-round siege of a 16th Century fortress would help a lot in slowing down expansion.

Now, that would be a great idea for a unique, new system for EU4.