Europa Universalis IV announced

[Viking]

Btw, is there anything that describes the combat system in more detail? For example, what exactly things like combat width mean?

that hasn't changed from eu3, so

http://www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Military

[garbon]

Btw, is there anything that describes the combat system in more detail? For example, what exactly things like combat width mean?

http://eu4wiki.com/Land_warfare

[Solmyr]

Thanks Garbon.

[garbon]

Pretty intense, the people that put that stuff together. Also seems like a replacement for the FAQ forum.

[JonasSalk]

It's kinda sad that the people who play the game have to basically decode all this arcane shit, since Paradox doesn't put out guides or anything.

[Anatron]

Nice,my ironman Burgundy save disappeared form the cloud since yesterday.
Good job Paradox,please continue!!!

[DGuller]

I've been thinking about army composition recently, and I think my old strategy of pairing pretty much every infantry unit with artillery needs to be revised.  As I read the Wiki, and followed the various battles in slow motion, I came to conclusion that having a wider front than the enemy is crucial. 

If you're wider that the enemy, and have at least a couple of units of cavalry, you can really chew up the enemy from the sides during the shock phase.  You need some artillery to protect your center from their artillery, but once you match their number of cannons, I think you're better off with adding infantry and cavalry.  Of course, this may not apply as well to mountain combat, where flanking is unlikely, and your priority should be to fill out the front row with infantry, and back row with artillery.

[Tamas]

Is the patch out yet?

[Viking]

I've been thinking about army composition recently, and I think my old strategy of pairing pretty much every infantry unit with artillery needs to be revised.  As I read the Wiki, and followed the various battles in slow motion, I came to conclusion that having a wider front than the enemy is crucial. 

If you're wider that the enemy, and have at least a couple of units of cavalry, you can really chew up the enemy from the sides during the shock phase.  You need some artillery to protect your center from their artillery, but once you match their number of cannons, I think you're better off with adding infantry and cavalry.  Of course, this may not apply as well to mountain combat, where flanking is unlikely, and your priority should be to fill out the front row with infantry, and back row with artillery.

You probably want quite a bit more cavalry. After a discussion on the MP forum over at paradox I found something that I had never realized. The dice get modified by tech multipliers.  e.g. early on when you say have shock modifiers 0.75 for inf and 1.5 for cav and both have 1 pip (latin men at arms and latin knights), removing terrain modifiers your average result is

Inf 1 for pip + 4.5 for average dice roll = 5.5 which gets multiplied by 0.75 for a final result of 4.125, which, multiplied by 6 means each Inf kills 24.75 men per shock phase

Cav 1 for pip + 4.5 for averge dice roll = 5.5 which gets multiplied by 1.5 for a final result of 8.25, which, multiplied by 6 means each Inf kills 49.5 men per shock phase. It's for killing too.

Early on you might only have a total width of 20 (15 basic plus 5 for tech 5 (iirc)). Having more than 20 inf and cav just means they rotate in and out of battle. If your force is larger by more than 4 and the opponent has less than max width minus 4 then you want at least 4 cav up to tech 18 (when maneuver is 1.5 and cav get maneuver 3, at which point you want 6, and later when maneuver is 2.0 you want at least 8)

Cavalry remains viable for a long long time. Do the same calculation as above but with a shock 5 leader and....

1+4.5+5 = 10.5 x0.75 = 7,875 * 6 = 47.25
1+4.5+5 = 10.5 x 1.5 =  15.75 * 6 = 94.5

this can be brutal.

But my main point here that cavalry is good for much more than flanking since the modifier multiplies the dice roll.

[dps]

I've always pretty much gone with roughly equal numbers of cav and inf in my armies.  It isn't necessarily the most effective ratio in combat, but it makes breaking an army down into smaller pieces a breeze.

Once artillery becomes available, I generally want a 2/2/1 cav/inf/art ratio.

[crazy canuck]

I've always pretty much gone with roughly equal numbers of cav and inf in my armies.  It isn't necessarily the most effective ratio in combat, but it makes breaking an army down into smaller pieces a breeze.

Once artillery becomes available, I generally want a 2/2/1 cav/inf/art ratio.

Kind of screws you when your infantry starts taking damage and you suffer the penatly for having too high a ratio of cav doesnt it?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm generally using a 2:1:1 mix. Some would argue that there is too much infantry there, but what with often leaving small forces behind for sieges and the way casualties seem to work out it works quite well.

[sbr]

When do you all start adding artillery to your armies?

[Anatron]

When do you all start adding artillery to your armies?

As soon as I researched it.

[Alcibiades]

You don't need it early, for battles. 


Theres a tech that increases artillery fire by a significant amount.  Usually when its worth getting, but they dont do much before that.