Very possibly something so annoying it ruins the game...

[unmerged(2941)]

I've been playing EU for a few months now, leaning as I go, despite the horrible lack of extra instruction/information, and I have a few major complaints.

The game is simply incredible and perfect, until you get into combat. IT just doesn't make sense. Is there even a difference between Cavalry and Infantry? What about cannons? Are 10 cav and 10inf better than 20 cav or 20 inf? what about 10 cav and 10 cannon? How does the combat even work? I know morale is taken into account heavily, but it still seems arbitrary.

I recently went to war with the Spanish in a FANTASIA game where I was Eire. I had a 74 army of about 50 cav and 24 cannon or so, and the enemy army of 7 units totally defeated it. How the fuck does that work? Where does that even come into play? I understand that there are various tech levels, but c'mon, 74 vs 7? What the hell is going on? How do I even tell?

The battle screen seems like it would be helpful, but 90% of the time the battle is OVER before I can even see the screen, cause theres so much stuff going on.


On a different note, in the same game, the spanish/catulunya colonized a single city near my border, and all of a sudden, a brand new center of trade opened up which took over nearly 70% of all my provinces, and of course they managed a monopoly almost insntantly, so I was out the majority of my income. Naturally, I declared war and tried to take over the province, only to experience the above difficulties and the came to the realization that YOU CAN'T TAKE OVER A PROVINCE. Whats up with that? I know that I read about that being historically accurate and all, but in this sutiation, it simply made the game not fun.

Here I was with a random CoT that developed right next door and leeched 70% of my profits. I Can't take it over, cause I Can't figure out how to actually conquer a province, and I can't defeat his army cause I can't even see whats going on in the battles.

Somebody help me, please! I suppose I could be considered a newbie or whatever, and don't just say RTFM, cause believe me, I've tried to read the f**king manual, but its not helping much.

- A very frustrated EEder

 

[unmerged(1909)]

If the game is going too fast for you to tune in to the battles, you should reduce the game speed by hitting CTRL -.

 

[unmerged(248)]

EEder,
COTs seem to appear randomly in the colonies, but I don't know the criterion that makes them appear, but just guessing I would say that Spain had a higher trade level than you (which you can check in your last saved game file).
As for battles, the 10+ superiority you enjoyed over the Spanish was bad luck, unless it contained a really excellent General and she has a much higher land-tech level than you, my advice; save before a battle, and if the result is rediculous, reload!
Toby

 

[unmerged(367)]

Something so annoying

Read the FAQ. No, seriously. There are a couple of good player-mainainted FAQs that explain combat in a fair amount of detail. Go up and over to the FAQ section, and check them out. Combat is, I believe, a sticky thread at the top of the page as well.

In short, yes, there's a difference between infantry, cav, and artillery. The game models two phases of combat, fire and shock. Artillery is good at fire; cavalry is good at shock; infantry is mediocre at both. Tech levels make a difference, too. In the beginning of the game, nearly medieval, firepower is primitive and shock carries the day. Later on, the balance shifts more towards infantry, and artillery becomes more useful in the field, rather than just in sieges. Cavalry superiority carries a combat bonus. And lack of sufficient cavalry means you'll really get chewed up in the pursuit phase after the army breaks, if your opponent has cavalry of his own.

But the main facet of the combat system is morale. You generally lose because your morale breaks, not because you've taken lots of casualties. Morale is more important than numbers. A poorly motivated, supplied, equipped, and led horde is next to useless compared to an elite force. Just think of conquistadors and Aztecs.

I'd also say that it's probably a mistake to interpret "battles" as standup fights on a plain somewhere. It's the confrontation between the armies that's being resolved. And you might lose by being outmaneuvered and having your supplies cut off and camp sacked, say, without losing many men at all. Perhaps a superior leader catches the leading fragment of your army and defeats it in detail. It's not necessarily a case of lining up two armies in a fair fight and having them gun each other down.

It's perfectly possible to take over a province. To conquer a province, you have to acquire it as part of a peace negotiation, not merely occupy it with troops. That will let you "control", but not "own", the province. When you offer (or are offered) a peace, you have your success in the war measured by "stars" (or tombstones if you did poorly). Controlling provinces is worth stars; occupying the enemy capital is worth a couple of stars; and winning battles in the field gives you a little edge, too, I think (unless that's just victory points). Based on the number of stars you have, you can make various demands of the enemy, including their provinces. You can generally take up to three per peace, unless you annex the entire country at once.

It's probably also worth keeping in mind that the game isn't really Civ Historicale. Conquering every province on the board isn't really the main goal, as it is in most 4X games.

 

[unmerged(2650)]

EEder wrote:

How does the combat even work? I know morale is taken into account heavily, but it still seems arbitrary.

No, morale is not 'taken into account', it's handled separately form casualties. What i mean is that your army has a strength value and a completly indipendent morale value. When ONE of the two values reach zero, generally morale, you loose.

As Drew Davis pointed out

You generally lose because your morale breaks, not because you've taken lots of casualties. Morale is more important than numbers.

 

[unmerged(252)]

See below:

 

[Vulture]

Its still a game. You're right: storming a 7k army with 72k totally mad Eires and losing is not realistic you would think. However: Bituit, a Gaul leader, once decended from the Cevennes in France with 300.000 Gauls and he got slauhtered by 80.000 Romans... YOu see, it is possible

 

[BiB]

I get fairly realistic results. I can see how a newbie gets frustrated though at first but bear with it, it all adds up in the end.

 

[unmerged(2650)]

Vurbil, i know, but i'm italian so when i speak i say loooose

Now i realize why my english teacher, may his soul rest in peace, sometimes looked daggers at me.

 

[unmerged(2941)]

Reality VS Fun

First, I'd like to thank all of you that responded with intelligent and helpful comments. Its rare and rewarding to see good help like that, as opposed to random flames that occur so frequently on help / message boards.

The overwhelming response is that, "Hey, its happened in history that 7k armies have beaten 72k armies, so deal with it." But I think we all have to take a close look at the occurance of that - for each 7k army that defeats a 72k army, chances are that 30 other 7k armies were defeated. That is, although it may happen occasionaly, it was with a doubt the minority of the time.

The question then comes to this - Does EU accuratly represent the fact that, yes, *occasionally* a 7k army may with due to some freak of nature accident or sheer luck or whatever, but the *majority* of the time, it will barely stand a chance.

So far, I think EU has represented that. But, in my last week or so of playing i'm starting to doubt that. Its the same case where my 12-17k army of Cavs go to take over or fight natives and loose to 5k of villagers... again, is that becuase i'm using Cav? With regards to that - what -is- the best unit combo? Lots of Cav/CAnnon? Lots of Inf alone? Towards the begining of the game, do you guys usually build lots of inf?

Anyway, I'd just like to see whats going on in the battle a little more. Why do my troops go to 'breaking' morale so quickly when we outnumber htem 3:1? Is it the technology difference? How much terrain bonus is taken into account? Is it the weather? Perhaps they have a better commander? Did my forces not eat well this morning? Perhaps they havent had sex in a while...? that must be it. Where are all these factored in to come up with the final battle outcome?

Thanks for all your great help guys, I really appreciate it.

-EEder

PS.

Another comment i'd like to make is this idea of being obesesed with reality. Reality sucks guys, thats why we play Computer games. It would be nearly impossible to make a computer game that would accurately simulate any real major war, as almost all wars faught on earth have been decided or at least heavily influenced by some insane battle.

My feeling is this: Make the game fun, *then* make it realistic. When you add realism and realism and realism and the game gets more fun and more fun and more fun; you're on the right track. but the second you add another touch of realism and it detracts, even in the slightest bit, from the actual -fun- of the game, you've reached too much realism.

-EEder

 

[unmerged(548)]

- what -is- the best unit combo? Lots of Cav/CAnnon? Lots of Inf alone?

It changes depending on opponent and terrain. READ MY FAQ.
Also look in the sticky threads at the top of the forum (about combat & moral).