The only thing I would say that he missed is that sometimes it's worth some extra ducats to win a battle at all costs. In the early-mid game 1 battle can determine an entire war when most nations use only one stack. You can also plan to use cav by taking techs that give them combat ability with the results being 1 combat wipes over and over.
@@gregmccauley1687 I totally agree on that. I only play Ironman, and as you say, winning some specific early "must win" game battles is worth the outlay imo :-)
@@nameoname-c3l A naval combat fix would be cool, have something with a similar UI to infantry, but where they slide past each other like with line fighting.
Fix the Cav. Fix the Fort mechanics which they broke. Fix the Damn estates Fix Aggressive Expansion Fix the Casis Beli/Espianage mechanics... Fix the whole damn game.
i basically have no idea how to play the game. only recently started to split my troops up. I used to run around with gigantic attrition units. I got some pretty difficult achievements, but if you were to pit me against a human or even a stronger AI nation, whoomp whoomp for me.
@@fuckingyellow4125 Same goes to me. The only thing I understand about the combat is terrain and forts lmao. Stats like speed and flanking made much more sense if fighting with smaller armies lmao.
This seems like something that a good maneuver general should do. 0 Maneuver, your troops don't get to where they need to go 6 Manuever, they do the Can-Can, and are exactly where they are needed exactly when they are needed.
That would be a good use of manouver. Maybe just use it as a hard limit of the amount of moves that can be done. 2 per fire/shock phase per manouver or something. With every unit moving being one move so a scoot over for one cav would be two moves since both a cav and an infantry moves. Another one to go to reserves. Would make it take time to move back to the front line in case of reinforcements too
Right or something like at 0 maneuvers the unit could move once per day or fight during the day. At 1 maneuver the unit could move once per day AND fight during the day(so maybe add a maneuver phase each day and make the order combat phase -> maneuver phase).
There are plenty of modifiers that would make sense for cav. Extra unrest reduction since they can cover more ground. Extra post battle casualties for the enemy if you win. Higher movement speed, something they had before.
I always assumed extra post battle casualties for the enemy were already a thing. Sad to hear I was wrong. Also, line compression should just be a mechanic, another thing I already assumed was a thing. If your center is out, your line should compress. This would basically result in your cavalry fighting any time your lines are close to even, giving you an edge if things aren't already wildly in your favor. More post battle casualties + line compression would be fine by me.
Also, at that time most casualties were suffered usually during routs, inflicted mostly by chasing cavalry Of course, that was real history, why would they put it into a video game:))
So basically, cavalry should cost less, or do more damage. It should be able to bully itself into the centre when it can so it utilizes its flanking range more effectively. Though surely the solution would be to have the combat width change itself to the minimum required (i.e It should decrease as more units are killed). Spare units would, therefore, be sent to be reserve and cavalry would still be used effectively
Just the bully mechanic would be worth it. Simply have the cavalry swap units inward (pushing useless infantry to the sides), to avoid most of the edgecases. If reinforcements arrive, cavalry simply swap back.
I think to make People play horde in this patch they should re enable aristocratic ideas so you can have 60% cav Combat ability or create a new special idea for horde
This isn't entirely on topic but I think this video kind of indirectly addresses one of my issues with PDX games. You see it with how in depth Arumba is getting about Cav and you see it pretty clearly with the game's trade system too. There are tons and tons of hidden modifiers and unclear effects that all go into calculating how these things work. Unit pips, unit modifiers, general pips, general attributes, tactics, discipline, morale, terrain, die rolls, combat modifiers. All of these things combine to determine how combat works (and similarly for trade you have steering, efficiency, trade goods, development, trade power, mercantilism, etc.) But in the end what the player actually does most of the time is just send their blob of units into the enemy's blob of units while keeping an eye on terrain. All a player does for trade is pick the best spot to send their merchants and light ships. There are so many pieces of hidden math in this game but so little of that actually translates into stuff the player gets to directly manage. PDX seems to really like adding modifiers but more often than not the player doesn't get good ways to do anything about them.
Jack L Arumbas critique is of the combat system and how simple it is and him wishing it was more complex. Modifiers aren’t really a problem with the game and knowing the all isn’t necessary to be a good player (Arumba does because he’s a mim/maxer and enjoys squeezing out every bit of efficiency he can in runs). To be honest not having everything given to you on a plate is a big attraction for PDX games and slowly over time learning all the mechanisms and related modifiers is part of the fun. Equally, not being able to control every modifier although frustrating to a mim/maxer is pretty realistic when it comes to running nations and wars; you’re not an omnipotent god, but a ruler trying to find his way in the early modern period.
@@GenoAtkins More complex, yes, but more meaningfully complex is the important part. Most of the mechanics Arumba talks about would change the game in a visible way and add new strategies the player could employ. I agree you don't need to know everything and I agree that being forced to slowly learn over time is also a good thing. The problem I have is that ultimately that learning doesn't matter much. You make pretty much the same decision whether you barely understand combat or whether you go ridiculously in depth like Arumba does here.
They're bad developers. They don't hire enough people and rush projects and take a half decade to finish them after release. Their ideas are all half baked as fuck. Just listen to Johan's ideas and he's a senior dev there.
“If I’m a smart player, I’m going to take the money I saved by not hiring cav and have extras!” No, you would have already spent that money on light ships lol.
Light ships are an investment. The expectation is that if you're spending the money on light ships, you'll eventually get enough in return to make your expenditure worthwhile. If all you do when you have free money is spend it on more light ships, and you never have enough money coming in that you can afford to spend it on anything other than light ships, then you've got a serious problem.
Might not be light ships, but it may be an investment towards heavy ships, buildings, etc. Having just a touch of cavalry seems to work well for me as Venice. Not much, just one for each flank, and some artillery. Mostly because while I could hire mercenaries, I prefer to avoid it if I can. Though altogether I prefer to make my allies to the real fighting if I am Venice, unless it is against someone like Milan or something and, let's say they lost a war against someone else and are diplomatically vulnerable. So yeah, what Arumba said about conserving manpower being one possible motivation. I often find myself very low on manpower as Venice. Usually with my overwhelming economy I can even go a bit over my forcelimit, but that can only be pushed so far before it gets stupid expensive, it already kindof is for going a little over. He talks about having reserves, but while that's nice if neither party is close to their forcelimit, I like a touch of cavalry once I already am really pushing it. And a standing army has some nice benefits in that other factions are less likely to declare war on you, costs are upfront as opposed to mercenaries that are on the spot, and goes towards points/ranking if you care about that sort of thing. Even though Venice has a nice powerful economy, it is good to be able to spend more freely and have a standing army ready to hold enemies off until you save up again for mercs.
It would be cool if you could order a cavalry charge during combat, similar to how to you order an artillery barrage in a siege. It could then either go really well and it breaks their lines and you start hitting the back row or perhaps it does massive morale damage. Alternatively, it could go full charge of the light brigade and your cavalry get wiped and you take morale damage.
Having something to do during battles basically goes against the entire philosophy of Eu4's combat, where you're supposed to just have bad RNG get attacked by other bad RNG, completely autonomously.
How about that cavalry that flanks without an enemy in front of them they can attack the backrow too? Like just ride along the side and hit the artillery? Like real cavalry?
Admittedly the main purpose of cavalry is to bully nations with smaller armies in the early game who have less shock, I mean, a high shock general plus some cav in the early game is pretty devastating. Late game cav are only useful for high shock generals but by that point lolcannons do most of the work
@@prussia9255 It sort of is. In late medieval the cavalry were dominate, they destroyed enemies if used properly. But by the Napoleonic era, square formations, bayonets, canister shot, these all defeated the purpose of cavalry. They were suicide chargers at that point.
@@ryanrzjr ...what? That is soo wrong. Cavalry being essential to warfare again was a hallmark of the Napoleonic wars. They were extremely effective, and essential to the armies of most major combatants a reason. Not only because they were incredibly good shattering formations of infantry in lines (or in any formation that wasn't the classic square pretty much), but also because by forcing infantry into a square (the only real defense they had) made them extremely vulnerable to artillery. They were huge, if you study battles of that era they come up over and over again as a central piece of the army, and often the cause of decisive results.
@@cinquine1No, Napoleon's use of canons let him conquer southern Europe. It destroyed the Italian states and the Austrians. And yes, cavalry was used strategically. Cavalry on the medieval scale however decided battles. In the late medieval era cavalry could destroy any army, see the battle of Vienna. (That is an exaggeration, don't take that word for word.) There is a very large difference in the use. Cavalry in the start of eu4 stands for itself, and changes every battle. This is similar to the real world use of it. Cavalry at the end of the game had more of a mobile use. It was to weaken the enemies before the next round, normally taking heavy causalities. This is similar to real world fighting in the era, and every way you listed of their use, was more of a strategic use and not an actual military use. Your last point is some truth and some lie. Cavalry was still useful for an army, and if you didn't have it you were going to be out strategized. However, the Napoleonic era brought things like canister shot, which made cavalry charges difficult and vulnerable. Cavalry was either slaughtered or used properly, and Napoleon used his army to set up his cavalry for the right charge. See the battle of Waterloo, where he failed to use his cavalry right, and this was his last battle. Cavalry was delicate in the era, and dragoons began over taking lancers and hussars in European militaries. And the purpose of dragoons was to peck at the infantry lines, and often dismount horses, kinda making them no longer cavalry.
Of course artillery was important too, why are you acting like it's all or nothing? They were both essential branches of militaries at that time. Why infantry was also vital too, imagine that! Complex armies have always had multiple essential branches, including in the medieval period. These wars just took organization further. This idea you have that cavalry in the late medieval period were uniquely "dominate" is questionable at best. Not only because that period ended in 1500 (1683 is solidly the early modern period), but because cavalry could always virtually wipe out infantry caught in the open and not in a defensive formation. This was true from 800 BC, up until the many times it was done by napoleonic era cavalry. Cavalry could always shatter lines unprepared for it, why napoleonic cavalry did that too. But what artillery with canister shot did to Napoleon's cavalry was exactly done by British longbowmen to French cavalry in 1415, right down to the obstacle tactics. Massed pikes could and did prevent cavalry charges all through the middle ages the exact same way the square did. Yes, Vienna happened. Other extremely successful charges happened. But many many dismal failures happened in that period too, and many more charges didn't happen because they were stopped by pointed sticks. Now that we've got that out of the way, the reason I said that cavalry was "a hallmark" of the napoleonic wars, and why I thought your comment was so especially off, is because one of the defining changes in military strategy of that period was a huge resurgence in the importance of cavalry. Your statements might have been more accurate 50-70 years prior, but for almost every napoleonic battle you see cavalry playing an integral part. This was a change from previous wars for the most part. Cuirassiers were everywhere, as were hussars. Armies were mixed, not just cavalry of course, but the same was true in the medieval period, as well as the early modern period of Vienna. So this idea that you have, that cavalry were reduced to just "suicide chargers" and "pecking" during that period is so, so wrong. They were an integral part of just about every major land battle. You say things like they were finicky, that Napoleon used them wrong and lost. Exactly! Using cavalry correctly meant the difference between victory and defeat in that period. You say not to take "cavalry could destroy an army" word for word, but why not? It did happen, cavalry could deal a single overwhelming blow that shattered an army. It happened in 1683 after all. It also happened in 1812. And 1813. Just for starters. As for your idea that they were used "strategically", and that means they weren't important, I just don't know what you were even thinking. I listed ways that they were used in combination with other units. That's what happens in war, especially the more organized wars such as the napoleonic wars. But they still played an essential role, as did the other main branches. But if for you cavalry are only relevant when charging lines, well the heavy cavalry did that too (or dragoons, when heavy cavalry were in short supply). You were talking about cavalry charging every battle in EU4, heavy cavalry did in the majority of engagements they fought in. If they didn't, they worked in tandem with other units, fighting on the line and threatening to charge, keeping infantry packed together because if they spread out, a charge would wipe them out. The cavalry charge in some ways reached its peak at that period, in terms of how often they happened (look into it, it's shocking), but also how well executed they were. They were extremely organized maneuvers, requiring huge amounts of training. And the happened. Over and over again. They overwhelmed entire battalions. Over and over again. Let's talk about your idea that cavalry were just pecking at stragglers, etc. That's light cavalry. They of course did that, but the heavy cavalry charged, or fought on/near the line. Hell heavy cavalry would be kinda useless for that sort of running around. And there was a lot of heavy cavalry (cuirassiers for example) deployed in that war. As for dragoons, yes they were originally (as in the 1600s) to intended to dismount for combat, but by this period that idea was all but gone (they still did, but it was no longer their primary role). They were basically indistinguishable from "official" cavalry, just with worse pay and equipment so countries could field more of them (a common theme in this period). They were used as medium to heavy cavalry, with all the charging that entailed. This idea that they acted like light cavalry is again, just wrong (in that time period, different story in say 1650). In fact outside of certain British "Light Dragoon" units (that's the official name), dragoons were furthest from light cavalry. Hell the British took this to the next level. When they "replaced" all their heavy cavalry with dragoons, they just demoted the heavy cavalry units, because officially dragoons were paid less (Britain was trying to reduce military expenditures in the mid to late 1700s across the board, this allowed them to keep more of these units). British heavy dragoons were heavy cavalry in all but name. In many ways this period was a golden age of charges and cavalry warfare. Yes they faced challenges, but your writing them off as suicide charges and pecking at lines is completely invalid. Heavy cavalry charges were a devastating weapon when executed correctly (a caveat that has always been attached to cavalry). You can see how this golden age affected the ideas in later wars. In Crimea, in the Franco-Prussian war, hell even into WW1 commanders repeatedly tried and failed to replicate the success their fathers and grandfathers talked about, even though technology had gone too far for that. But still they tragically tried, because cavalry as a serious offensive weapon was still fresh on their minds. TL;DR: Heavy cavalry kicked ass in the napoleonic wars, except sometimes it didn't for the same reasons sometimes it didn't in 1415. If you changed your original comment to "the purpose of cavalry was defeated by time of the Franco-Prussian war" then that checks out.
www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm This website goes into some detail and kinda explains why they were so effective. They didn't need to flank because they had massive lances that could reach the front line pikemen before the pikes hit their horses.
The real problem is flanking is trash... They calculate the game as two lines hitting eachother instead of a tridimensional realm... So if cavalry has no targets 2 to the side, they can't do a thing, whereas in reality... The cav would move forward and circle the ennemies, meaning the longer width army would go around the smaller one, not just stop firing because they have no target. Sadly, that's not represented in EU4. Here's a drawing of what I mean where x is infantry and c is cavalry: xxxxxx vs cxxxxxxc should go this way: cxxxxxxc xxxxxx where the cavalry just surrounds the enemies and start hitting the outside infantry.
yeah but so would infantry, they would just start strangling the enemy force until they either route or die, they wouldn't just sit there and wait for the rest of the week.
Oh I know, the whole flanking should be reworked like this in my opinion. If they make it so only cav can flank this way, it would justify the high cost of cavs, that's all (Paradox could justify it by saying something like '' because cav are faster at moving on the battlefield, they can flank.. '' bla bla). Yes, all units should be able to flank, you are absolutely right, it's just to solve the cav problem. Making all units able to do that is much more complex sadly (even though it would be amazing).
Would also make battles more deadly and faster, but I think if something like that is brought to the table combat width will have to be altered once again by terrain to avoid blobs just filling their widths and eating small nations
Equal amounts of troops? I thought that cavalry were stronger, even by tech 10, but they just cost more. I'm still wondering about this, for a couple of reasons. For most of the game (I rarely even _get_ to the late game, because I get bored with it), force limit is my bottleneck, not ducats. If I can get a stronger army with a few cavalry, I can probably afford the extra cost more than I can afford losing battles (or losing more men in a battle). However, you're saying that my premise isn't true, that cavalry _aren't_ stronger in equal numbers, even by tech 10? Furthermore, in many cases, I'm fighting a smaller army than my own. Partly, that's when the AI screws up, but mostly, it's because I tend to target weaker countries in offensive wars. Since cavalry have an increased flanking range, I can use those extra numbers to my advantage. Maybe they only attack the edges of the enemy army and they're worthless after that, but that still means I can win quicker, while taking fewer casualties. And in a war, that matters. Whether that's worth the cost depends on the circumstances, I'm sure. I'm certainly _far_ from an expert at this game. But I tend to be a lot better at the economic stuff than I am at waging war (mostly because the economic stuff interests me more, I suspect). So I'm still not completely convinced, I guess. Arumba is a lot better player than I am, and he plays the game a lot differently than I do (a _lot_ more aggressively, for one thing). He's probably right. He certainly knows more about it than I do. But... I just don't know. (I try to get lots of artillery, at least later in the game, but I can't replace my front line with artillery, whether they're infantry _or_ cavalry.)
It no longer shows stats and you have to "manually" run each battle and it's only up to date to version 1.18 but yeah if you put in equal tech and everything no cav wins: i.imgur.com/K4HMSIb.png It might be bugged tho, hasn't been updated in a long time, actually firing up the game is more appropriate ;) This was just a quick test EDIT: also, playing with unit types didn't seem to change the outcomes, restarting the simulator did tho
@@decisivelydan8739 So because I'm insane i decided to take a crack at the simulator myself. I changed the terrain to grassland and I made the dice fixed to one number to eliminate any random chance. The cav army won every time but they (usually) won better when the dice were fixed to low numbers (this is because cavalry are worse at the fire phase- which is the first phase- than infantry and so they take more damage immediately.) That all being said, the cav army only barely won each time, with morale ranging from 0.15 to 0.05. Also, even though the cav army wins, they take about equal losses. When the dice are fixed to 6, 22% of both armies are killed because so many of the infantry army retreated. I also tested with only two cav and the results were pretty much that 2-cav is worse than 4-cav on the battlefield although it it is a bit less expensive and still beats the infantry army. I also also tested with arumba's 15-man-reserve-infantry army and it won (duh). Though there are reasons not to do this type of army such as force limit and attrition These are images of the results of the battle when the dice are fixed to 6. 4-cav vs. infantry: imgur.com/n4sIb9k 4-cav vs. 15-reserve-infantry: imgur.com/gMa8MOZ 2-cav vs. infantry: imgur.com/BCrHETs 4-cav vs. 2-cav: imgur.com/Mk1Fq3D This was way too much effort but I'm okay with that. and as the op said, all results may be subject to error.
Great talk about the inefficacy of EU4 combat mechanics. I would say that @26:00 when you start talking about reinforcement of the other guys where his width expands again, the better mechanic is "dynamic reinforcement". This solves the problem of Artillery on the Front Line and reinforcement of infantry at once. As the Cavalry would push in, the infantry would move to the reserves, and SO WOULD THE ARTILLERY. That way if artillery in the center is routed for whatever reason, it can be replaced by reserve artillery that had withdrawn from the flank where they are ineffective. Since their flank range is the same a Cavalry, once the Cav moves in and "exposes" the Artillery, they'd not be able to fire anyway, so they should simply withdraw to reserve and redeploy where needed further in. This way as you collapse the opponents front, your reinforcements can focus on losses interior to the lines and help shore up and ensure the engagement is won. If there were reinforcements, then the reserves could re-deploy outwards (over the Cav like you showed) to try and prevent the opposing flank. There seems to be this idea that during the Middle Ages warfare was much more static than it was. It was a very dynamic affair with pretty complex tactics being employed. Once flank had been achieved, the chance of withdrawal of an opposing army was often nearly zero. It is why many surrendered once a flank had been achieved because to attempt to withdraw under those circumstances often led to more casualties than simply surrendering and taking a controlled withdrawal of your forces and the loss of whatever position was being fought over.
It's not a inefficiency, its made that way because it's a game, not real life. If you made changes like proposed you would break the game and make people spam cavalry which never happened in your real life scenario and would be horrible in-game.
Storm clouds, fire and steel! Death from above, make the enemy kneel! Fighting with power and grace! Death from above, it's an army of wi- oh hang on Filip I just routed my army, I'm done. Mine's gone too, Janek. Wanna play checkers? Guess so. The rest of the army is waaay out of my range. Tea?
Wow, I was always doing 4 infantries - 2 cavalry - 1 artillery and was wondering why my armies kept loosing battles and why I always had trouble having positive incomes... (I'm a beginner, only have about 240 hours on EU4) It was a great explanation ! Thank you, I never really thought about the whole fight mechanics. It's much clearer for me, I hope it will help me on some world conquests !
A thing he forgot to talk about too, cav are mostly shock damage, early game it does not really matter since fire phase does not really matter, late game more then 60% of the damage comes from the fire phase. So for example if a cav unit lose 50% of it's units in the fire phase, it will deal 50% less damage in the shock phase where most of it's damage is done. So even if cav have more pips and modifiers to damage it gets negated by the fact that when it can deal damage the unit already suffered a full fire phase worth of damage.
This is a symptom, not the cause. Shock and Fire are balanced by themselves in the game. The early game - late game disparity comes about precisely because, looking only at pips and tech multipliers, early game inf is better at shock than fire, while even late game art is basically garbage in shock.
The problem is that Paradox things Depth==Modifiers. They created a overly complex math for combat that you need a PhD on mathematics to fully understand thinking it creates a more deep player experience. While had they create a logical combat system... not so heavy relied on modifiers, but on troop composition and deployment... it would be more satisfying. A Cavalry actually flank mechanic would be awesome... since cavalry were very important into the 19th century... but in the game is mostly useless from the start.
I think March of the Eagles had a system focused on troop composition. I don't know how it works, but Paradox didn't implement it straight up in EU 4 so I guess there where some issues.
@ platoon mexx What are your sources for these baseless claims you made? How do you know the AI would suck? and it would be easy to exploit? Have YOU developed such system and deemed impossible? If yes... maybe you're just a bad game designer... if no... how can you claim those things?
Mateus Bittencourt uh, where are your sources bud? That’s such a weak excuse to ignore his opinion. Seriously just reread your comment and see how huge of an asshole you appear.
Not only do you sound like an idiot Mateus but... You don't need sources to prove what he said: right now, most high end computers cant even run EU4 when there's too many troops on the map, adding a system that calculates positions of troups during fights to account for flanking would make it even harder for computers. It's that simple, no sources, basic logic. Also, AI sucks in EU4 already, adding another mechanic the AI has to '' think '' about not only slows the game but also means they're gonna have even more trouble. It's easy to claim those things because we're in 2018 and no AI is that good in games. That's it, that's all.
I absolutely agree with Arumba about the cavalry moving in during combat in order to essentially chase the flank, you know like actual cavalry would. Oh and maybe making cavalry flanking bonuses stronger so that they actually make cavalry flank farther. It would also be interesting if they could move back out during combat if reinforcements arrive, again trying to reach the flanks. While this would be pretty cool and would certainly make cavalry stronger, I think I prefer the idea of the cavalry not being able to move back out if caught by reinforcements, say because they've been pinned down by the enemy engaging them. I would also like to see deployment change so that a larger army always deploys a combat width to match the enemy's plus flanking. Then the rest can stay in reserves where they can redeploy to replace a retreating unit (routed center) or deploy to match any reinforcements from the enemy, again match plus flanking. This would also have the added bonus of decreasing the passive moral damage received (yes, units take passive moral damage for just being in combat, even if they are not engaged) by moving them to the reserves, where this passive moral damage is decreased. I would also add that artillery should not deploy to the front line when engaging a smaller enemy in order to flank, as they sometimes do. The only times artillery should deploy to the front line is if there are not enough infantry or cavalry to cover them AND they are being engaged by a larger army. There are two considerations I have about this system though. The first is that this would be an indirect buff not just to cavalry and cavalry related ideas, but also quantity ideas since having the larger army would be even more significant. The other is that this would make combat significantly more laggy since there would be so much more conditional unit movement.
This is why Arumba is successful, as opposed to me. I've got such a "good enough" attitude. It goes the same for movies, food, books etc. I'm always like, "whatever, it's good enough why worry?" I think people who can actually improve something that doesn't really *need* it, are the type of people who achieve greatness.
I miss this so much, I remember first coming to your channel for the beginning of the OG Proper Portugal playthrough and I got into the game because you explained the exact details of mechanics and whatnot as you went, granted you might've addressed it a video or two after you were actually pondering how something worked but still Fucking love this shit
Arumba it is not just that horde cav have more pips In early game, most hordes have anywhere from 15-20% Cav combat ability in their ideas. Some have more. Also you can stack cav combat ability with other idea groups. So horde cav is very good.
@@georgejanzen774 yeah but if you're a good horde player you just go into debt then make a crap load of money in peace deals, razing and looting to pay it off. Basically hordes make more money than westerners if, and only if, you play very well (2000 ducat peaces with ming etc). The main economic difference is it's inconsistent, unsustainable and causes inflation but that's the reason you reform the government and pick ideas to aid this, so basically you can afford 100% cav armies as a horde only in specific circumstances.
I haven't played EUIV in years, and I'm subscribed to Arumba but haven't watched anything of his in a while because I got a new job that doesn't involve a lot of downtime. I saw this and for whatever whim reason clicked on it. Even though I have no interest in playing again, I am fascinated and blown away by his ability to break down and explain a complex topic in such an efficient and eloquent manner. I watched the whole thing just because of the master-level explanation skills.
It would be great if cav would influence the total number of routing units after battle. Lets say, for each unit of unrouted cav that you have at the end of the engagement, the enemy loses 1% of their troops due to being pursued, obviously with a certain cap (let's say, 10%). For all the rest, your video is definitely neat Arumba and you get my subscription!
I found this very enlightening and fascinating, thank you a lot Arumba. My problem is, I usually miss the sweet spot where it matters. I am usually being drawn to play OPMs or other small countries. Think Lübeck/Hansa or Hamburg or Riga (Hamburg being my go to nation since it's my hometown). So in the beginning, as you stated, manpower is more of an issue than ducats - the latter I have, the former I don't. So discounting mercs I'd go for a decent amount of cav. Then there's the end game where nothing really matters anymore except for speed in world conquest. Enemy army composition better than mine? Well, I am ahead in mil tech and have thrice the amount of units. So yeah, I don't care. But of course there is a sweet spot in midgame inbetween. One where overambitious small nations will falter. You got the manpower to field a non-merc army but cannot really compete with the big guns. And I lost quite a game after a good start. Maybe this understanding will help me. After all, even if I don't have my 15 extra inf in battle, I may be able to field them quickly enough to support a major battle.
So, I think this is the best system (ALL assuming this is from left to right): Cavalry: Oh huh, I can't shoot. Hey infantry/artillery on my right, move to the left of the cavalry line. Oh you're a cavalry? Did the unit on your right take damage today? If not, have them move to the left of the cavalry line, unless they're cavalry too. Infantry/Artillery: Oh huh, I can't shoot. Can the artillery behind me shoot? No? To the reserves! I'll refill the width if reinforcements arrive. Cavalry/Artillery: I'm being shot by newcomers! Is there a unit to my left? If there is, I'll move to the reserves and redeploy tomorrow on the flank!
I must admit as I was getting into EU many years ago this is exactly how I thought cav functioned. Because it just makes sense for a flanking unit to work this way.
I really don't understand why Paradox kept their god awful combat system for all this time despite numerous major DLCs already released into the game. Such a simple(yes coding it isn't actually difficult) change will make such a huge difference. Right now I just don't pay too much attention to combat beyond generic numbers advantage and modifiers like discipline, morale and tactics because the combat system is so awful that it will just do its own thing rather than what logic dictates it should.
The combat is piss poor thanks to forts, non ending reinforcements that the AI abuse, merc spam, no manpower, AI that ignores FOW and will never attack a bad position
@@sandrothenecromancer6810 Can we also talk about how every man, woman and child is ready to die for their country all at once even after you smash their armies and raze provinces? Rebels seem to mobilize nationwide immediately so that, if you ever have a devastating war and take some provinces, you run the risk of losing them to 16k rebels spawning all at once. Lets not talk about the dice rolls. Also, it sucks that the only thing good about this game is the historical references and map painting, there's not much to do outside of conquest and diplomacy isn't all that in depth. Honestly, HoI is more of a living world than this and the combat system is much better.
Literally 3 hours of coding work max to implement those changes. Add a day to test and fix bugs. Doesnt fit into a DLC plan tho so probably never gonna happen but would make sense
What would be nice is if you could set priority for each of the different units to be hitting something in front. For example, artillery gets priority 1 for back row, and 3 for front row, cavalry gets priority 3 for back row, and 1 for front row. Infantry gets priority 2 for back row and 2 for front row. All of these priorities should be able to be interchanged by the player in the military screen. That way, if cavalry is not hitting something, it will always move the artillery or infantry blocking it from hitting something aside. This also allows for cavalry to not get stuck in the back row, and for artillery to not be moved to the front row when you have cavalry in reserves. With this in place it'll make battles a lot more realistic and allow for cavalry to shine up to the 1700s, where it would be impractical for most people as artillery and infantry combat effectiveness would outclass cavalry's cost, and minuscule buff when compared to the artillery and infantry.
Great info, thanks a lot for sharing. The only point I disagree, I usually have more problems with manpower than with ducats. Unless I'm pretty sure I'll be in peace for a long while (ha!), I'll always choose manpower over ducats. I can't begin to count the number of wars that went south because of manpower, or how much more I had to wait to start a war because my manpower was too low, while that's rarely true for Ducats....
Huh, I always thought that units did full damage to everyone in their "attack range" and the point of cavalry was to quickly shrink the enemy flanks, so your force would start taking damage from only a single flank rather then from both.
This is why I tend to focus primarily on infantry and secondarily on artillery until I will get near a force limit, unless I have particularly good modifiers in something else. A small amount of cavalry then may be practical within the budgetary limits I have. Cavalry also have some limited utility for some special use cases, such as splitting of to reinforce an ongoing large infantry battle slightly sooner than sending the whole force together.
Would make sense but they nerfed Cav by removing any speed advantage, which is utterly rediculous. No interdiction, pursuit, scouting or seizing ground function, so not really Cav.
Forgot to take into account that the flanking range on your cavalry increases with your techs. By the time we get to that pip parity situation you outlined, your cavalry could hit 5 dudes not 2. Totally support the move in mechanic, but just gotta play devils advocate and point out the Calvary would be far more useful than you demonstrated (useful doesn't mean worth it ;p still right about that cost ratio)
Dude you are asome, I just meet you channel yesterday with the Navarra series and Im impressed. All the stuff you know about EU4 its just unimaginable. Keep up the great work. Grettings from Argentina! pd: sorry for the bad english Im still learning
Why not have the cav be able to hit units in the backrow if the front row unit dies, like they ignore the flanking range and are just able to hit the outermost back row unit if they are unable to hit a front row unit
That's a moot point because if a unit in the front row dies, the unit behind it is automatically forced into the front row. In effect, what you're talking about already happens.
Well it would make sense if the Cavalry can attack the 2nd row directly ... which is a classic pincer move i think. Edit: of course only at the flanks of that enemy army. I might to remember that this happend quite often in real battles of that time, flanking with cavalry and devastating the cannons. Commanders needed to react to such attack with swinging the outer front edges back. Which is of course impossible in EU4
That's like flank attacks with cavalry are supposed to work i think. To roll them up from the sides and from behind if unprotected. However i understand that there is only one combat line and concessions to that must be made. After close study of the wiki i found things that bothers me with the general comment that cavalry is useless. First the placement of units at the beginning, which happen after a certain algorithm. Cannons are not placed in the first row as example as long there is a unit to place in front, be it infantry or cavalry. Cavalry might end up in the second row if there are too few cannons. That is not really uncommon giving the costs of it. The combat width is nice but only a part of a large army can fight that smaller one as it concentrate forces in the middle of the battle line. That spells of course doom for cavalry as they are placed on the edges. However it might be useful for the smaller. However, cavalry get in the late game huge flanking, up to 5, which comes very handy in that scenario. While infantry has max 2 flanking. I'd say i still keep 4-6 cavalry also they do quite hefty damage in the shock phase. They are kind of shock troops to soften up enemy lines and to destroy their morale. So in conclusion i'd say, the limiting factors are clearly visible. But its not very new to have infantry most , So first line + 50% reserve. Second line full cannons and half of cannons number cavalry at the edges. Preferable even number. If you can afford it and are short on manpower, of course only mercenary infantry as they always take highest losses.
Yeah i realise this would be horribly broken, but the game already favours larger armies over smaller one, so maybe as a caveat have this only happen in plains where cav has the ability to wrap around and hit the second row.
I don't know if chat touched on this, but what if you're outnumbered? Would cav packing more punch per unit plus the flanking range change how a battle goes or would they still be better off as infantry?
Kellosian Probably depends in why you are outnumbered. If you’re lacking money you would probably be better of having 2 infantry instead of a cavalry. If manpower is a problem however then maybe.
@@axelnils I think kellosian meant outnumbered in a individual engagement. In which case, I don't think so because while they can flank further, to my understanding they can still only shoot one target at a time.
+Kellosian But for me, for most battles, I outnumber my enemy, not the other way around. Partly, that's because I try to target weaker countries in wars of aggression, and partly, it's because I try to target smaller armies when I'm in the war. Even when I fight a larger country (and I just had a war with the Ottomans that scared the crap out of me), I try to avoid equal fights. With cavalry, I can have that advantage of flanking, which means that I'm likely to win faster while taking fewer casualties, right? (And the latter matters, because I'm likely to be fighting one battle after another.) I can't replace cavalry with artillery, because I do need a front line. I'm not a very experienced player, so I never know how many is enough, but whatever that number is, I need a front line. So this issue is only about replacing cavalry with infantry. As a player, I think that I'm a lot better at managing my economy than at waging wars. (Certainly, I'm nowhere _near_ as aggressive as Arumba is! Or Quill, either!) The extra cost of a few cavalry units doesn't _seem_ to be very much. And I try to stay at my force limit, so it's not as though I could be recruiting a lot more infantry, instead. PS. I do use mercenaries, but usually only for emergencies. Maybe I should make better use of them, but they _are_ expensive, and it's really nice to have that ace in the hole, if my regular armies are badly out of position or I need a quick come-back from a loss.
Yes spreadsheets, that is why I am subscribed to this channel. Also another big thing is infantry are stronger in the fire phase which comes first. So at higher techs that gives infantry a huge advantage.
Line compression + greater post battle casualties for the enemy would seem to me to be the most reasonable fix. If units in your center are wiped out, the flanks should compress if there are no reinforcements available. That way, you can always attack the enemy flanks any time reinforcements come in, and the only time cavalry are not in combat is if you already have an overwhelming lead. And if your center starts to collapse, your flanks come in, and cavalry is back in combat. I have actually always assumed those two mechanics were already in play.
Great ideas throughout this video... just saying, it would be kind of hard for Paradox to implement this, they'd have to overwrite a lot of the combat system. I'm having a nightmare just trying to envision how to code it myself (I code videogames as well, its harder than it seems). But I mean, they coded eu4, so if they wanted to they could probably code this.
You should take a look at what the MEIO and Taxes guys did. They made a full cavalry mechanics overhaul for their mod. So it's doable for dedicated moders.
Eu4 would be a lost cause for this but EU5 wouldn't. Also the way he explained his cavalry changes later in the video are actually quite easy for a programmer to implement, everything was laid out in a very logical way. Now I have no idea how well his idea works when someone tries to run non standard armies but I think all of this has merit for future EU games. In saying that I think a quick fix would be to either drop the cost of cavalry down (hello god tier Poland) or rework the cavalry bonuses so they actually end up doing 250% damage compared to infantry.
They shouldn't do full 250% damage, then there would never be a reason to get infantry, but they should do more than 128% or so they do now. Maybe 150% to 200%?
Here is an idea, cav should be support class, such that if you have one cav for every two infantry in the army the infantry would do 1.5 times the damage(or a boost similar to that.) and they can not be engaged if they have no infantry. They would die in stack wipes and be killed at the same rate and the units they support on combats (or a fraction of that rate.)
It's that inefficiency that's the problem though. One cavalry unit is better than one infantry unit on its own; however for the price of two cavalry, you can get five infantry. if, perhaps, you have infinite money but are really tight on manpower (say you're playing as Malindi, Kazan, Kilwa, or colonial Peru, with gold mines but no development) then running your full allotment of cavalry is a good option, but those are exceptions; so to with Poland and its absurd bonuses to cavalry ability. In the usual scenario, where it's the ducat budget and not the manpower budget that you're worried about, then infantry outstrip cavalry, especially in the later stages of the game when they can contribute to the shock phase themselves.
I would file that under the "except Poland" clause. +10 Discipline for the low low price of some up-front corruption (until you start eating Korea and Ming it's not like you have an economy anyway) and regular maintenance is an exception that is literally *just* for Manchu and not applicable to the rest of the game.
Yep. And early game they are stronger than later game. A rich nation like France can use cavalry well early on but by tech 10 or so, they tend to not make sense.
But what about only artillery? Sure its expensive, and might be less cost efficient when fighting, but it removes the need for seperate siege armies. On a separate note, there is a minimum price on units, just like coring and so on. Not saying it is likely, but because of that there could be scenarios where price doesn't matter. And third, cavalry might cost 2.5 times more, but it loots 3 times faster kappa
Florryworry did a Smolenks cannon only run. The problem with cannons only is they melt if they can't stack wipe the enemy before the shock phase starts.
And while Smolensk sure as shit has the best artillery focused ideas, i feel that playing a army like this relies a lot more on discipline because of this than combat ability or fire damage. I think a custom nation with stuff like reduced shock damage recieved and increased discipline can stop the melting from happening.
Cav irl would flank, and envelop armies, that was their whole purpose, in this game, you route one regiment as a cav regiment, then sit down and drink some tea.
When did you start hating Cav? I'm watching your Byz series and you are using a bunch. Admittedly you really go nuts only once you get the special Cossack cav, but even before that you were using them. That aside there's plenty of use for Cav. You used a late game 40 width army to "prove" Cav are bad due to the cost, but most of the time in late game you are not limited by cost or manpower so much as you are by force limits, and even within that you are limited to a 40 width front. Although Cav is meant to to losing out to Inf in many ways by late game anyway, it's meant to peak earlier and be phased out as Cav gains Shock faster then Inf gains fire for the first half of the game. You can't just look at endgame tech, conclude that Cav is less powerful there, and backfill that conclusion over the entire game period, you need to compare cav/inf stats at different points in the game to see if they really are bad or not. Unless you are constantly filling your combat width for the entire game, which is unlikely, there will always be times when Cav's flanking range allows them to attack targets that an Inf in their position would not be able to target at all. In those cases Cav is not just only X% better as you might calculate from comparing their stats alone, they are infinitely better. You could argue if that factor worth the cost, but you didn't seem to address it at all. You could also think about how if Cav are worse on a ducats per effective pip level but better when compared 1 on 1, then you need to have more units of Inf to match an Inf+ Cav force. More units are going to take more attrition, and probably more losses in each battles which all leads to more reinforcing units draining your manpower faster and more WE, which are also factors in winning a war efficiently. You even need to consider the simple extra coordination it takes to manage a greater number if less powerful armies. The real proof would be to run a series of battle tests ingame against equal cost armies using a mix of all inf vs inf + cav enough times to account for RNG differences, or even better, play out a number of wars so that the factors outside of battle can be included. Although even then you'd need to remember that there are nations besides Poland who get some nice Cav bonuses.
Windows 7 man, I dont think I could watch Arumba if he used Vista. Its like seeing and business man sit down and use windows 8 - not even 8.1... just 8.
Would love it if the cost of cavalry was significantly reduced in provinces with terrain types historically more conducive to rearing large horse populations - ie. especially steppe, but also minor bonuses for grasslands and drylands.
This is why by the late game period IRL cavalry we falling out of favor, and people started using mounted infantry or just using cavalry as scouts. Cavalry did historically become less and less effective over the course of the game's time frame.
But for much of WWI commanders were still looking for that glorious cavalry overrun after breaking the enemy's defenses. Even after the ground became too craterous for the horses.
@Venalitor is right, even in WWI officers were trying to make situations where calvary could do breakthroughs and kill artillery and support. What is needed is if Cav isn't being opposed they would go hit the 2nd line, directly attacking any artillery if the flanks fall....that would make them really useful and effective.
"Cavalry is useful before, during, and after the battle” - Napoleon Bonaparte “Without cavalry, battles are without result” - Napoleon Bonaparte The Napoleonic Era is when this game ends. Cavalry was an essential part of battle throughout the entire period of EU4.
Cavalry fell out of favor in the 1900's not the 1800's. It was only the invention of rapid loading fire arms that took away cavalry's ability to function. It only became obsolete though when tanks became reliable enough to act as a substitute.
@@Leivve And even then, there were specialized roles in which cavalry remained effective into the second world war. Armed with anti-tank weapons and dismounting before combat, cavalry could force armor to wait for infantry, and they could manage terrain that motor vehicles could not. On a related note, my grandfather was a veteran of the Great War. He was trained as an artilleryman, but when actually deployed, his primary assignment was care and use of the draft horses which moved field pieces. He had been a farmer and rancher before the draft, so livestock management wasn't something he had to learn. This function was fully mechanized for the US Army between the wars, but most countries did not accomplish this. Horses were a flexible battlefield tool for all but the most recent history.
You completely forget about stacking bonuses though lol, and also money is absolutely irrelevant if you play your game right. Cav is WAY more powerful for at _least_ half the game, depending on nation and ideas and other bonuses. What _is_ correct, though, is that 4 cav is the ideal number in an army. And no, 20/0/20 is not just a template to throw out there as "the right one" either (haven't watched more than 3 minutes but I know others tries to sell this point without knowing what they're talking about). You need to protect your cannons or you're f'ked. 20/4/16 is a much better setup, and ratios from thereon. Obviously late game when you face 50k stacks (if you do), you have dedicated inf/cannon units and pay attention to the battles. If you're western tech, you might want to phase out cav end game and focus on fire instead of shock. Stacking: I'll explain this extremely simplified: What's better, 2x0.2 or 2x2? Yeah exactly. This is why cav is _awesome_ with a correct shock focus and/or ideas for the first half of the game. AND they hit many more targets than infantry AND it's much easier to stackwipe units with cav (due to the amount of damage they are able to do over a short amount of time). I have 3k hours and I'm sure there's others who have way more. But I highly suspect anyone that has actually _done_ this instead of _avoiding_ actually _testing_ it out throughout their games will veer towards my point here. You can't just do random maths and not do it properly, nor take into consideration every choice you make throughout the game. The example at around 6 minutes: That's not at all how armies deploy every time. Cav will place themselves more narrowly more often than not, at least on max width. Also in this example the enemy army is quite smaller. AND it is assumed here that it is NOT a good thing to collapse the enemy flanks quicker (which obviously reduces morale quicker and thus contribute more quickly to a complete stack wipe). AND units will relocate themselves as battle progress. I don't HAVE to be pedantic about everything, but it's quite annoying when it's a video that so many people will see, and then this is presented like "cav sucks" when it is obvious he (Arumba) would go a full cav army for most of the game IF it cost the same as infantry and had no ratio penalties... new players might see this and never utilize a great asset to their campaigns. Edit: 8 minutes something in: No, artillery is absolutely useless for the first 2-3 techs in battle. Using your own argument (but actually being more relevantly "mathed" this time) you're much better off using more infantry. Cannons for the first period is for sieging. 10 minutes: Again, "the total number of pips".... this is absolutely irrelevant in a pre-planned setup. For an experienced player, you choose discipline or morale depending on your setup (related to manpower, forcelimit, national ideas, etc). This in turn affects _which unit you choose_ and if you have, say, national ideas that give you shock damage, you obviously choose infantry that has more shock pips (and depending on age/tech). Defensive pips is absolutely irrelevant if you're good at fighting wars and/or will win any war of attrition, or already have a good offensive focus. Seriously, stop oversimplifying things when backing up statements just to win "truth creds" or however I should put it! I kinda don't care that much (I just love writing) but at the same time also a bit annoyed by behaviour like this. "What really matters though, is the total pips". No. Absolutely not. Lol What the hell man xD This has been seen 287 000 times. Wonder how many people watch this and swallow every bit... I mean I should really care because it won't affect me... but I just reall hate spreading of misinformation, biased and unneuanced... 10:11 Then you focus on Tercio VS Scwarze Reiter lol. Convenient that you do this (tech 14, 2 techs after Reiter, and the newest inf) is it not? Latin Caracole 2 techs after that having 3 offensive pips (stacking even more).
Thanks for the information! I only have like 300 hours and i only got 5000 dev with the ottomans and i was really frustrated with my army, i used quality, quantity, defensive and offensive and STILL i had trouble fighting. I had usually 54k men (used this mid game until late game), using 25-10-19. (Yup. Not very effective). In the end i found out that 4 cavs will get the work done. Again, thanks for helping!
This is quite a spot on explanation. Only a few minor details left out, like that reserve troops take passive morale damage every day but ok, the argument itself is still perfectly valid. Also cav are actually slightly faster (or infantry is slightly slower than cav and art). Not a big difference, just having +1 maneuver under very specific circumstances. I kinda love this system a lot actually especially because it's extremely simple - all those tiny details are there, but ideally they only matter to a small degree. It makes them more satisfying / impressive when they have an impact, like that crazy italy-ottoman war in one of the recent videos but in the end just having the bigger army is all all one needs to know to win most of the time. CK2 as well. It took me years to even bother figuring out what's actually happening in the battles. And I really appreciate to have been allowed to do that. Very very few strategy games have ever allowed the player to care so little about the combat. That was always that thing everything was traditionally designed around and often at the expense of everything else.
_Very very few strategy games have ever allowed the player to care so little about the combat._ I'm not sure I see that, since I still get beaten badly if I don't pay a _lot_ of attention to the details. I'm not a very experienced player, and it seems to me that I really _do_ have to care a lot about the combat. On the other hand, I agree with your general idea, I think. I'm not a wargamer. I get bored by combat games. What I love about EU4 is the economic and development stuff, and I'm never happier than when colonizing. (I'm playing as the Kongo now, and I played as the Creek nation before that, so there were tons of places to colonize all around me in both games.) I _like_ developing my country. That interests me. The combat is necessary, but... I don't enjoy it that much. It's just something that I have to do sometimes, in order to expand (or, in the case of the Creek, to defend myself). And it's harder to pay attention when something doesn't interest me, so maybe you're right. I'm doing OK in the game, despite that. So you might be absolutely right.
There's not really that much to gain by figuring it all out, you can just do the same things just with smaller numbers or fewer allies. And that will automatically come with experience over time. You can also always just loose wars. It's usually not the end of the world. I've been playing games for decades and I'd have to think extremely hard to find another game where you can just loose the entire war thing and still end up just fine. In Crusader Kings 2 it's even better, you can always just join anyone instead of fighting them at all. It hurts my brain that it took decades for anyone to even get that idea. :D
I disagree. In his full combat width example from ~ 15:20 onwards, the cavalry army would win, all else being equal. Even late game when cav advantage is at it's least, the cav army will win. His argument only applies if you can't afford to fill your force limit with cav. He'll spend less on his army...but lose the war. His argument only works when his opponent has money problems. The reason players don't use cav late game is the micro to avoid insufficient support, not because they're bad.
Cav don't have great fire stats. Fire becomes the predominant phase of battle in the mid-late game. On day 1 of combat, you're going to do more damage (both manpower and moral damage from losses) to them than they will to you. That means there will be less of them to do damage back to you on day 2. That effect snowballs until you completely destroy the cavalry army. That's why everyone fills their combat width with cannons in the mid-late game. I actually disagree with his early game assessment of cav. I don't have the numbers, so they may not do 250% more damage to equal their cost, but both fire modifiers and manpower are very low in the early game. Shock is the name of the game early, and cav are the best shock. 4 fire infantry general isn't going to do squat in 1480. 4 shock cavalry general will roll over anyone in his way. (This is all assuming no insufficient support modifier.)
Manpower is usually a bigger problem than force limit for me, but that's probably because I play as nations with manpower boosting ideas and never pick quantity.
If it can bully itself into the center one of the things I would love is if the bully mechanic worked with the generals maneuver, some form of complexity of the fight for each pip means move x cavs per day so x cavs per day move in. Any cav that can't hit take priority
to make cavalry meaningfull, have them operate outside of the width of regular engagement, just like what happened historically: relatively slow footsoldiers being flanked by way faster cavalry. So if the combat width is 20, you get 20 infantry in your stack minimum, then there's a separate part where cavalry roams. If the opponent has no cavalry and the flanking range is 2, there's 2 spots on each side where cavalry can flank anyway unless countered by the cavalry of the opponent. In this manner cavalry neither needs its cost reduced, nor it's damage increased and it reflects way better how flanking cavalry operated.
I feel like this is turning into a EU4 documentary channel...
I... kinda love it xD
And here we see the commonwealth in its natural habitat..
"Do you guys see why I don't like cav?" *sees 17 more minutes of footage*
That’s arumba
That one guy said about mongol cavalry and he had to be put in his place
based arumba analyzing unit compositions with calculators and spreadsheets
now THIS is podracing
I'll try spinning, that's a good trick
The only thing I would say that he missed is that sometimes it's worth some extra ducats to win a battle at all costs. In the early-mid game 1 battle can determine an entire war when most nations use only one stack. You can also plan to use cav by taking techs that give them combat ability with the results being 1 combat wipes over and over.
@@gregmccauley1687 he mentions that
@@gregmccauley1687 I totally agree on that. I only play Ironman, and as you say, winning some specific early "must win" game battles is worth the outlay imo :-)
Wow, that was a seriously vintage quote.
Arumba has declared war on Paradox mechanics... Casus belli: Fix the damn cav!
Fuck the cav, can someone explain/fix naval combat, cause for now it is like "push more ships and you will be fine".
They should simply flanc enemy and attack from behind
@@nameoname-c3l A naval combat fix would be cool, have something with a similar UI to infantry, but where they slide past each other like with line fighting.
Fix the Cav.
Fix the Fort mechanics which they broke.
Fix the Damn estates
Fix Aggressive Expansion
Fix the Casis Beli/Espianage mechanics...
Fix the whole damn game.
TheBrothergreen And then require every player to pay $15 or more to get the changes that actually matter.
great, now you've made me mad about something i barely understood
Haha
i basically have no idea how to play the game. only recently started to split my troops up.
I used to run around with gigantic attrition units.
I got some pretty difficult achievements, but if you were to pit me against a human or even a stronger AI nation, whoomp whoomp for me.
@@fuckingyellow4125 Same goes to me. The only thing I understand about the combat is terrain and forts lmao. Stats like speed and flanking made much more sense if fighting with smaller armies lmao.
Lmao
This seems like something that a good maneuver general should do. 0 Maneuver, your troops don't get to where they need to go 6 Manuever, they do the Can-Can, and are exactly where they are needed exactly when they are needed.
That would be a good use of manouver. Maybe just use it as a hard limit of the amount of moves that can be done. 2 per fire/shock phase per manouver or something. With every unit moving being one move so a scoot over for one cav would be two moves since both a cav and an infantry moves. Another one to go to reserves.
Would make it take time to move back to the front line in case of reinforcements too
that would fix maneuver seeing as its completely useless in most situations
Right or something like at 0 maneuvers the unit could move once per day or fight during the day. At 1 maneuver the unit could move once per day AND fight during the day(so maybe add a maneuver phase each day and make the order combat phase -> maneuver phase).
The units can move every x days, x being 7 - general manoeuvre skill. That'd be nice.
This. So much this.
There are plenty of modifiers that would make sense for cav. Extra unrest reduction since they can cover more ground. Extra post battle casualties for the enemy if you win. Higher movement speed, something they had before.
I always assumed extra post battle casualties for the enemy were already a thing. Sad to hear I was wrong. Also, line compression should just be a mechanic, another thing I already assumed was a thing. If your center is out, your line should compress. This would basically result in your cavalry fighting any time your lines are close to even, giving you an edge if things aren't already wildly in your favor.
More post battle casualties + line compression would be fine by me.
So like cav in Crusader Kings then?
@@ingold1470 mixed with the impoved orderkeeping of vicky2
Extra post battle casualties? I thought casualties were determined everyday of the battle
eu3 before the last dlc , cavs had better movement speed
"maybe a spreadsheet would be a good way to deal with this"
hell yeah, that's the good stuff
I'll never say no to in-depth explanations of Paradox game mechanics.
The current cavalry system ignores the fact, that cav(real) was able to attack the enemy in the rear too.
It was the entire point of cavalry, chargind straight at enemies even without pikes was always a risk
What would/could? make them viable. Bc then your other troups have even more of an advatage.
Also, at that time most casualties were suffered usually during routs, inflicted mostly by chasing cavalry
Of course, that was real history, why would they put it into a video game:))
Damian Mares it’s called stack wiping bro
@@sandrothenecromancer6810 What is light/skirmish cavalry for 500
So basically, cavalry should cost less, or do more damage. It should be able to bully itself into the centre when it can so it utilizes its flanking range more effectively. Though surely the solution would be to have the combat width change itself to the minimum required (i.e It should decrease as more units are killed). Spare units would, therefore, be sent to be reserve and cavalry would still be used effectively
Just the bully mechanic would be worth it. Simply have the cavalry swap units inward (pushing useless infantry to the sides), to avoid most of the edgecases. If reinforcements arrive, cavalry simply swap back.
No, bully alone would not be sufficient, as demonstrated. It just makes them less of a liability.
I like the idea of cavalry having their own combat width. As inf can only deploy up to 24 but cav have 28 meaning the last 4 are cavalry or empty.
I think to make People play horde in this patch they should re enable aristocratic ideas so you can have 60% cav Combat ability or create a new special idea for horde
The idea variation mod does that.
"Dude, are you hitting something?"
*Wookie howl*
"how many dudes are you hitting right now"
"like 0 bro"
"you are like little baby, watch this"
am cavalry, gief priority
LOL
yep my 1000 cav friend ima lil 80 ppl brave inf unit AT EM
next day
yep my 1000 cav friend ima lil 50 ppl brave inf unit HURRAH
next day
...
This isn't entirely on topic but I think this video kind of indirectly addresses one of my issues with PDX games. You see it with how in depth Arumba is getting about Cav and you see it pretty clearly with the game's trade system too.
There are tons and tons of hidden modifiers and unclear effects that all go into calculating how these things work. Unit pips, unit modifiers, general pips, general attributes, tactics, discipline, morale, terrain, die rolls, combat modifiers. All of these things combine to determine how combat works (and similarly for trade you have steering, efficiency, trade goods, development, trade power, mercantilism, etc.)
But in the end what the player actually does most of the time is just send their blob of units into the enemy's blob of units while keeping an eye on terrain. All a player does for trade is pick the best spot to send their merchants and light ships.
There are so many pieces of hidden math in this game but so little of that actually translates into stuff the player gets to directly manage. PDX seems to really like adding modifiers but more often than not the player doesn't get good ways to do anything about them.
Jack L Arumbas critique is of the combat system and how simple it is and him wishing it was more complex.
Modifiers aren’t really a problem with the game and knowing the all isn’t necessary to be a good player (Arumba does because he’s a mim/maxer and enjoys squeezing out every bit of efficiency he can in runs). To be honest not having everything given to you on a plate is a big attraction for PDX games and slowly over time learning all the mechanisms and related modifiers is part of the fun. Equally, not being able to control every modifier although frustrating to a mim/maxer is pretty realistic when it comes to running nations and wars; you’re not an omnipotent god, but a ruler trying to find his way in the early modern period.
@@GenoAtkins More complex, yes, but more meaningfully complex is the important part. Most of the mechanics Arumba talks about would change the game in a visible way and add new strategies the player could employ.
I agree you don't need to know everything and I agree that being forced to slowly learn over time is also a good thing. The problem I have is that ultimately that learning doesn't matter much. You make pretty much the same decision whether you barely understand combat or whether you go ridiculously in depth like Arumba does here.
"Die rolls", lol. Since casualties are depending on dice, seems pretty accurate name
Серёжа alright, I rolled a 9. That's a lot of die
They're bad developers. They don't hire enough people and rush projects and take a half decade to finish them after release. Their ideas are all half baked as fuck. Just listen to Johan's ideas and he's a senior dev there.
“If I’m a smart player, I’m going to take the money I saved by not hiring cav and have extras!”
No, you would have already spent that money on light ships lol.
Light ships are an investment. The expectation is that if you're spending the money on light ships, you'll eventually get enough in return to make your expenditure worthwhile. If all you do when you have free money is spend it on more light ships, and you never have enough money coming in that you can afford to spend it on anything other than light ships, then you've got a serious problem.
But a bunch of light ships, so...master strategy?
@@rovsea-3761 How about more B A R R A C K S ?
Might not be light ships, but it may be an investment towards heavy ships, buildings, etc. Having just a touch of cavalry seems to work well for me as Venice. Not much, just one for each flank, and some artillery. Mostly because while I could hire mercenaries, I prefer to avoid it if I can. Though altogether I prefer to make my allies to the real fighting if I am Venice, unless it is against someone like Milan or something and, let's say they lost a war against someone else and are diplomatically vulnerable.
So yeah, what Arumba said about conserving manpower being one possible motivation. I often find myself very low on manpower as Venice. Usually with my overwhelming economy I can even go a bit over my forcelimit, but that can only be pushed so far before it gets stupid expensive, it already kindof is for going a little over. He talks about having reserves, but while that's nice if neither party is close to their forcelimit, I like a touch of cavalry once I already am really pushing it. And a standing army has some nice benefits in that other factions are less likely to declare war on you, costs are upfront as opposed to mercenaries that are on the spot, and goes towards points/ranking if you care about that sort of thing.
Even though Venice has a nice powerful economy, it is good to be able to spend more freely and have a standing army ready to hold enemies off until you save up again for mercs.
@Kevin Picton please stop playing eu4. You don't understand it.
It would be cool if you could order a cavalry charge during combat, similar to how to you order an artillery barrage in a siege. It could then either go really well and it breaks their lines and you start hitting the back row or perhaps it does massive morale damage. Alternatively, it could go full charge of the light brigade and your cavalry get wiped and you take morale damage.
Well a pincer move to cause havoc at enemies cannons... that's cavalry for...
Having something to do during battles basically goes against the entire philosophy of Eu4's combat, where you're supposed to just have bad RNG get attacked by other bad RNG, completely autonomously.
How about that cavalry that flanks without an enemy in front of them they can attack the backrow too? Like just ride along the side and hit the artillery? Like real cavalry?
Yeah being able to jump into the enemies front line and positioning itself there left and right of the front ... that's what Cavalry is made for.
It might not be as efficient as using just infantry and arti but am not about to pillage raze Rome with no cav like some kind of horseless barbarian.
Best comment.
"Horseless barbarians"
*Cavalry being one of Rome's weakest assets* "Who you calling barbarian?"
Admittedly the main purpose of cavalry is to bully nations with smaller armies in the early game who have less shock, I mean, a high shock general plus some cav in the early game is pretty devastating. Late game cav are only useful for high shock generals but by that point lolcannons do most of the work
Not exactly realistic to real life though
@@prussia9255 It sort of is. In late medieval the cavalry were dominate, they destroyed enemies if used properly. But by the Napoleonic era, square formations, bayonets, canister shot, these all defeated the purpose of cavalry. They were suicide chargers at that point.
@@ryanrzjr ...what? That is soo wrong. Cavalry being essential to warfare again was a hallmark of the Napoleonic wars. They were extremely effective, and essential to the armies of most major combatants a reason. Not only because they were incredibly good shattering formations of infantry in lines (or in any formation that wasn't the classic square pretty much), but also because by forcing infantry into a square (the only real defense they had) made them extremely vulnerable to artillery. They were huge, if you study battles of that era they come up over and over again as a central piece of the army, and often the cause of decisive results.
@@cinquine1No, Napoleon's use of canons let him conquer southern Europe. It destroyed the Italian states and the Austrians. And yes, cavalry was used strategically. Cavalry on the medieval scale however decided battles. In the late medieval era cavalry could destroy any army, see the battle of Vienna. (That is an exaggeration, don't take that word for word.) There is a very large difference in the use. Cavalry in the start of eu4 stands for itself, and changes every battle. This is similar to the real world use of it. Cavalry at the end of the game had more of a mobile use. It was to weaken the enemies before the next round, normally taking heavy causalities. This is similar to real world fighting in the era, and every way you listed of their use, was more of a strategic use and not an actual military use. Your last point is some truth and some lie. Cavalry was still useful for an army, and if you didn't have it you were going to be out strategized. However, the Napoleonic era brought things like canister shot, which made cavalry charges difficult and vulnerable. Cavalry was either slaughtered or used properly, and Napoleon used his army to set up his cavalry for the right charge. See the battle of Waterloo, where he failed to use his cavalry right, and this was his last battle. Cavalry was delicate in the era, and dragoons began over taking lancers and hussars in European militaries. And the purpose of dragoons was to peck at the infantry lines, and often dismount horses, kinda making them no longer cavalry.
Of course artillery was important too, why are you acting like it's all or nothing? They were both essential branches of militaries at that time. Why infantry was also vital too, imagine that! Complex armies have always had multiple essential branches, including in the medieval period. These wars just took organization further.
This idea you have that cavalry in the late medieval period were uniquely "dominate" is questionable at best. Not only because that period ended in 1500 (1683 is solidly the early modern period), but because cavalry could always virtually wipe out infantry caught in the open and not in a defensive formation. This was true from 800 BC, up until the many times it was done by napoleonic era cavalry. Cavalry could always shatter lines unprepared for it, why napoleonic cavalry did that too. But what artillery with canister shot did to Napoleon's cavalry was exactly done by British longbowmen to French cavalry in 1415, right down to the obstacle tactics. Massed pikes could and did prevent cavalry charges all through the middle ages the exact same way the square did. Yes, Vienna happened. Other extremely successful charges happened. But many many dismal failures happened in that period too, and many more charges didn't happen because they were stopped by pointed sticks.
Now that we've got that out of the way, the reason I said that cavalry was "a hallmark" of the napoleonic wars, and why I thought your comment was so especially off, is because one of the defining changes in military strategy of that period was a huge resurgence in the importance of cavalry. Your statements might have been more accurate 50-70 years prior, but for almost every napoleonic battle you see cavalry playing an integral part. This was a change from previous wars for the most part. Cuirassiers were everywhere, as were hussars. Armies were mixed, not just cavalry of course, but the same was true in the medieval period, as well as the early modern period of Vienna.
So this idea that you have, that cavalry were reduced to just "suicide chargers" and "pecking" during that period is so, so wrong. They were an integral part of just about every major land battle. You say things like they were finicky, that Napoleon used them wrong and lost. Exactly! Using cavalry correctly meant the difference between victory and defeat in that period. You say not to take "cavalry could destroy an army" word for word, but why not? It did happen, cavalry could deal a single overwhelming blow that shattered an army. It happened in 1683 after all. It also happened in 1812. And 1813. Just for starters.
As for your idea that they were used "strategically", and that means they weren't important, I just don't know what you were even thinking. I listed ways that they were used in combination with other units. That's what happens in war, especially the more organized wars such as the napoleonic wars. But they still played an essential role, as did the other main branches.
But if for you cavalry are only relevant when charging lines, well the heavy cavalry did that too (or dragoons, when heavy cavalry were in short supply). You were talking about cavalry charging every battle in EU4, heavy cavalry did in the majority of engagements they fought in. If they didn't, they worked in tandem with other units, fighting on the line and threatening to charge, keeping infantry packed together because if they spread out, a charge would wipe them out. The cavalry charge in some ways reached its peak at that period, in terms of how often they happened (look into it, it's shocking), but also how well executed they were. They were extremely organized maneuvers, requiring huge amounts of training. And the happened. Over and over again. They overwhelmed entire battalions. Over and over again.
Let's talk about your idea that cavalry were just pecking at stragglers, etc. That's light cavalry. They of course did that, but the heavy cavalry charged, or fought on/near the line. Hell heavy cavalry would be kinda useless for that sort of running around. And there was a lot of heavy cavalry (cuirassiers for example) deployed in that war.
As for dragoons, yes they were originally (as in the 1600s) to intended to dismount for combat, but by this period that idea was all but gone (they still did, but it was no longer their primary role). They were basically indistinguishable from "official" cavalry, just with worse pay and equipment so countries could field more of them (a common theme in this period). They were used as medium to heavy cavalry, with all the charging that entailed. This idea that they acted like light cavalry is again, just wrong (in that time period, different story in say 1650). In fact outside of certain British "Light Dragoon" units (that's the official name), dragoons were furthest from light cavalry.
Hell the British took this to the next level. When they "replaced" all their heavy cavalry with dragoons, they just demoted the heavy cavalry units, because officially dragoons were paid less (Britain was trying to reduce military expenditures in the mid to late 1700s across the board, this allowed them to keep more of these units). British heavy dragoons were heavy cavalry in all but name.
In many ways this period was a golden age of charges and cavalry warfare. Yes they faced challenges, but your writing them off as suicide charges and pecking at lines is completely invalid. Heavy cavalry charges were a devastating weapon when executed correctly (a caveat that has always been attached to cavalry). You can see how this golden age affected the ideas in later wars. In Crimea, in the Franco-Prussian war, hell even into WW1 commanders repeatedly tried and failed to replicate the success their fathers and grandfathers talked about, even though technology had gone too far for that. But still they tragically tried, because cavalry as a serious offensive weapon was still fresh on their minds.
TL;DR: Heavy cavalry kicked ass in the napoleonic wars, except sometimes it didn't for the same reasons sometimes it didn't in 1415. If you changed your original comment to "the purpose of cavalry was defeated by time of the Franco-Prussian war" then that checks out.
only total war games come close in accurately representing the combat worth of cavalry
And isn't that sad?
Yes :(
With the force cavalry charges are in total war, they would realistically crash through the entire line within a second and the battle would be over.
I mean it matters the game as in some titles they were worthless trash but in others (such as Atilla) they are op as fuck.
@@TheOldBearTime yeah, but you take a lot of cav losses doing that and they're expensive af.
Can we send this video to paradox?
Someone posted it on Reddit and invoked the name of DDRJake.
@@Leivve where can i find this exact post? wanna see if jake will reply
He most probably won't because he knows the engine can't calculate this sophisticated math ;)
@@georgejanzen774 "sophisticated math".
@@Mekesi1 I think he was taking a dig at Paradox m8
Glad to have sound this time Arumba. Xxx
Daniel The Scotsman z
In the historical records polish hussars didnt flank, they charge straight to the center of enemy infantry to kill them by mass.
www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm
This website goes into some detail and kinda explains why they were so effective. They didn't need to flank because they had massive lances that could reach the front line pikemen before the pikes hit their horses.
What's a fire value in melee after all?
Good lord with tactics like that its like your trying to make Europa crash do to memory overload.
think skirmishing/musketfire, then shock=melee/charging then the units pull back and repeat the cycle, or something.
"Historicity is not a relevant argument"
Early game: Use cav
Late game: Don't
Unless you are playing as horde or poland
If you get high shock general use cavalry to deliver some heavy blows to the enemy
"Wait, that's NOT how it works?" - Me watching Arumba's suggestions.
Arumba: Rework CAV
Paradox: Why not Cav DLC he he he...
xD
The real problem is flanking is trash... They calculate the game as two lines hitting eachother instead of a tridimensional realm... So if cavalry has no targets 2 to the side, they can't do a thing, whereas in reality... The cav would move forward and circle the ennemies, meaning the longer width army would go around the smaller one, not just stop firing because they have no target. Sadly, that's not represented in EU4.
Here's a drawing of what I mean where x is infantry and c is cavalry:
xxxxxx
vs
cxxxxxxc
should go this way:
cxxxxxxc
xxxxxx
where the cavalry just surrounds the enemies and start hitting the outside infantry.
yeah but so would infantry, they would just start strangling the enemy force until they either route or die, they wouldn't just sit there and wait for the rest of the week.
Oh I know, the whole flanking should be reworked like this in my opinion. If they make it so only cav can flank this way, it would justify the high cost of cavs, that's all (Paradox could justify it by saying something like '' because cav are faster at moving on the battlefield, they can flank.. '' bla bla). Yes, all units should be able to flank, you are absolutely right, it's just to solve the cav problem. Making all units able to do that is much more complex sadly (even though it would be amazing).
Would also make battles more deadly and faster, but I think if something like that is brought to the table combat width will have to be altered once again by terrain to avoid blobs just filling their widths and eating small nations
I'm sure Total War has that...
Arumba is kind of right, I ran EU4 battle simulator and no cav wins over 4 cav in the majority of cases after tech 10
Equal amounts of troops? I thought that cavalry were stronger, even by tech 10, but they just cost more.
I'm still wondering about this, for a couple of reasons. For most of the game (I rarely even _get_ to the late game, because I get bored with it), force limit is my bottleneck, not ducats. If I can get a stronger army with a few cavalry, I can probably afford the extra cost more than I can afford losing battles (or losing more men in a battle).
However, you're saying that my premise isn't true, that cavalry _aren't_ stronger in equal numbers, even by tech 10?
Furthermore, in many cases, I'm fighting a smaller army than my own. Partly, that's when the AI screws up, but mostly, it's because I tend to target weaker countries in offensive wars. Since cavalry have an increased flanking range, I can use those extra numbers to my advantage. Maybe they only attack the edges of the enemy army and they're worthless after that, but that still means I can win quicker, while taking fewer casualties. And in a war, that matters.
Whether that's worth the cost depends on the circumstances, I'm sure. I'm certainly _far_ from an expert at this game. But I tend to be a lot better at the economic stuff than I am at waging war (mostly because the economic stuff interests me more, I suspect). So I'm still not completely convinced, I guess.
Arumba is a lot better player than I am, and he plays the game a lot differently than I do (a _lot_ more aggressively, for one thing). He's probably right. He certainly knows more about it than I do. But... I just don't know. (I try to get lots of artillery, at least later in the game, but I can't replace my front line with artillery, whether they're infantry _or_ cavalry.)
It no longer shows stats and you have to "manually" run each battle and it's only up to date to version 1.18 but yeah if you put in equal tech and everything no cav wins: i.imgur.com/K4HMSIb.png
It might be bugged tho, hasn't been updated in a long time, actually firing up the game is more appropriate ;) This was just a quick test
EDIT: also, playing with unit types didn't seem to change the outcomes, restarting the simulator did tho
what about a 100% cav ratio?
Part of the reason your attacker (with cavalry) is losing is because the terrain is forest. Have you tested it with plains?
@@decisivelydan8739 So because I'm insane i decided to take a crack at the simulator myself. I changed the terrain to grassland and I made the dice fixed to one number to eliminate any random chance. The cav army won every time but they (usually) won better when the dice were fixed to low numbers (this is because cavalry are worse at the fire phase- which is the first phase- than infantry and so they take more damage immediately.)
That all being said, the cav army only barely won each time, with morale ranging from 0.15 to 0.05. Also, even though the cav army wins, they take about equal losses. When the dice are fixed to 6, 22% of both armies are killed because so many of the infantry army retreated.
I also tested with only two cav and the results were pretty much that 2-cav is worse than 4-cav on the battlefield although it it is a bit less expensive and still beats the infantry army.
I also also tested with arumba's 15-man-reserve-infantry army and it won (duh). Though there are reasons not to do this type of army such as force limit and attrition
These are images of the results of the battle when the dice are fixed to 6.
4-cav vs. infantry: imgur.com/n4sIb9k
4-cav vs. 15-reserve-infantry: imgur.com/gMa8MOZ
2-cav vs. infantry: imgur.com/BCrHETs
4-cav vs. 2-cav: imgur.com/Mk1Fq3D
This was way too much effort but I'm okay with that.
and as the op said, all results may be subject to error.
Great talk about the inefficacy of EU4 combat mechanics. I would say that @26:00 when you start talking about reinforcement of the other guys where his width expands again, the better mechanic is "dynamic reinforcement". This solves the problem of Artillery on the Front Line and reinforcement of infantry at once. As the Cavalry would push in, the infantry would move to the reserves, and SO WOULD THE ARTILLERY. That way if artillery in the center is routed for whatever reason, it can be replaced by reserve artillery that had withdrawn from the flank where they are ineffective. Since their flank range is the same a Cavalry, once the Cav moves in and "exposes" the Artillery, they'd not be able to fire anyway, so they should simply withdraw to reserve and redeploy where needed further in. This way as you collapse the opponents front, your reinforcements can focus on losses interior to the lines and help shore up and ensure the engagement is won. If there were reinforcements, then the reserves could re-deploy outwards (over the Cav like you showed) to try and prevent the opposing flank.
There seems to be this idea that during the Middle Ages warfare was much more static than it was. It was a very dynamic affair with pretty complex tactics being employed. Once flank had been achieved, the chance of withdrawal of an opposing army was often nearly zero. It is why many surrendered once a flank had been achieved because to attempt to withdraw under those circumstances often led to more casualties than simply surrendering and taking a controlled withdrawal of your forces and the loss of whatever position was being fought over.
It's not a inefficiency, its made that way because it's a game, not real life. If you made changes like proposed you would break the game and make people spam cavalry which never happened in your real life scenario and would be horrible in-game.
Also I think cav should atack the artilhary in the second row if there's not a infantary protecting their diagonal.
And the Winged Hussars arrived, coming down the mountain-side.
And the Winged Hussars arrived, coming down they turned the tide!
Storm clouds, fire and steel!
Death from above, make the enemy kneel!
Fighting with power and grace!
Death from above, it's an army of wi- oh hang on Filip I just routed my army, I'm done.
Mine's gone too, Janek. Wanna play checkers?
Guess so. The rest of the army is waaay out of my range. Tea?
Funny enough winged hussars just charged the center mass of the enemy lines. not flank.
@@robertharris6092 Heavy cav vs light
Wow, I was always doing 4 infantries - 2 cavalry - 1 artillery and was wondering why my armies kept loosing battles and why I always had trouble having positive incomes... (I'm a beginner, only have about 240 hours on EU4)
It was a great explanation ! Thank you, I never really thought about the whole fight mechanics. It's much clearer for me, I hope it will help me on some world conquests !
This me reminds of the spreadsheet stream I once caught, where Arumba was trying to figure out why attrition didn't work....
A thing he forgot to talk about too, cav are mostly shock damage, early game it does not really matter since fire phase does not really matter, late game more then 60% of the damage comes from the fire phase. So for example if a cav unit lose 50% of it's units in the fire phase, it will deal 50% less damage in the shock phase where most of it's damage is done. So even if cav have more pips and modifiers to damage it gets negated by the fact that when it can deal damage the unit already suffered a full fire phase worth of damage.
This is a symptom, not the cause. Shock and Fire are balanced by themselves in the game. The early game - late game disparity comes about precisely because, looking only at pips and tech multipliers, early game inf is better at shock than fire, while even late game art is basically garbage in shock.
The problem is that Paradox things Depth==Modifiers. They created a overly complex math for combat that you need a PhD on mathematics to fully understand thinking it creates a more deep player experience. While had they create a logical combat system... not so heavy relied on modifiers, but on troop composition and deployment... it would be more satisfying.
A Cavalry actually flank mechanic would be awesome... since cavalry were very important into the 19th century... but in the game is mostly useless from the start.
I think March of the Eagles had a system focused on troop composition. I don't know how it works, but Paradox didn't implement it straight up in EU 4 so I guess there where some issues.
that game could not run on most of the pcs...
also ai would suck at it and it would end in an easy game cous players can exploit the ai even better
@ platoon mexx
What are your sources for these baseless claims you made? How do you know the AI would suck? and it would be easy to exploit? Have YOU developed such system and deemed impossible? If yes... maybe you're just a bad game designer... if no... how can you claim those things?
Mateus Bittencourt uh, where are your sources bud? That’s such a weak excuse to ignore his opinion.
Seriously just reread your comment and see how huge of an asshole you appear.
Not only do you sound like an idiot Mateus but... You don't need sources to prove what he said: right now, most high end computers cant even run EU4 when there's too many troops on the map, adding a system that calculates positions of troups during fights to account for flanking would make it even harder for computers. It's that simple, no sources, basic logic. Also, AI sucks in EU4 already, adding another mechanic the AI has to '' think '' about not only slows the game but also means they're gonna have even more trouble.
It's easy to claim those things because we're in 2018 and no AI is that good in games. That's it, that's all.
I absolutely agree with Arumba about the cavalry moving in during combat in order to essentially chase the flank, you know like actual cavalry would. Oh and maybe making cavalry flanking bonuses stronger so that they actually make cavalry flank farther.
It would also be interesting if they could move back out during combat if reinforcements arrive, again trying to reach the flanks. While this would be pretty cool and would certainly make cavalry stronger, I think I prefer the idea of the cavalry not being able to move back out if caught by reinforcements, say because they've been pinned down by the enemy engaging them.
I would also like to see deployment change so that a larger army always deploys a combat width to match the enemy's plus flanking. Then the rest can stay in reserves where they can redeploy to replace a retreating unit (routed center) or deploy to match any reinforcements from the enemy, again match plus flanking. This would also have the added bonus of decreasing the passive moral damage received (yes, units take passive moral damage for just being in combat, even if they are not engaged) by moving them to the reserves, where this passive moral damage is decreased.
I would also add that artillery should not deploy to the front line when engaging a smaller enemy in order to flank, as they sometimes do. The only times artillery should deploy to the front line is if there are not enough infantry or cavalry to cover them AND they are being engaged by a larger army.
There are two considerations I have about this system though. The first is that this would be an indirect buff not just to cavalry and cavalry related ideas, but also quantity ideas since having the larger army would be even more significant. The other is that this would make combat significantly more laggy since there would be so much more conditional unit movement.
This is why Arumba is successful, as opposed to me. I've got such a "good enough" attitude. It goes the same for movies, food, books etc. I'm always like, "whatever, it's good enough why worry?"
I think people who can actually improve something that doesn't really *need* it, are the type of people who achieve greatness.
This is literally god-tier editing. Congrats, Arumba!
Also to note; Cavalry loot 3x faster .10/mnth (infantry) to .30/mnth (cavalry)
I miss this so much, I remember first coming to your channel for the beginning of the OG Proper Portugal playthrough and I got into the game because you explained the exact details of mechanics and whatnot as you went, granted you might've addressed it a video or two after you were actually pondering how something worked but still
Fucking love this shit
Arumba it is not just that horde cav have more pips In early game, most hordes have anywhere from 15-20% Cav combat ability in their ideas. Some have more. Also you can stack cav combat ability with other idea groups. So horde cav is very good.
Hoards also get a bonus in open terrain.
They get the modifiers in any open terrain such as farmlands and grasslands as well.
But they're still as expensive with a much weaker economy to support them, in most circumstances of playing horde.
@@georgejanzen774 also true.
@@georgejanzen774 yeah but if you're a good horde player you just go into debt then make a crap load of money in peace deals, razing and looting to pay it off. Basically hordes make more money than westerners if, and only if, you play very well (2000 ducat peaces with ming etc). The main economic difference is it's inconsistent, unsustainable and causes inflation but that's the reason you reform the government and pick ideas to aid this, so basically you can afford 100% cav armies as a horde only in specific circumstances.
Man, I didn't realize how much went into EUIV combat before this video, thanks!
"The mathematics of defeat......."
Any hornblower fans? (Yes its from the tv series, not the books.....)
I haven't played EUIV in years, and I'm subscribed to Arumba but haven't watched anything of his in a while because I got a new job that doesn't involve a lot of downtime. I saw this and for whatever whim reason clicked on it.
Even though I have no interest in playing again, I am fascinated and blown away by his ability to break down and explain a complex topic in such an efficient and eloquent manner. I watched the whole thing just because of the master-level explanation skills.
It would be great if cav would influence the total number of routing units after battle.
Lets say, for each unit of unrouted cav that you have at the end of the engagement, the enemy loses 1% of their troops due to being pursued, obviously with a certain cap (let's say, 10%).
For all the rest, your video is definitely neat Arumba and you get my subscription!
10% cap is waay too low given the mass destruction Cav could inflict on broken armies, but intact enemy Cav should mitigate such damage.
This kind of content is why I'm subbed to Arumba. I love it.
I hope his subgard campaign gets uploaded
It's on his twitch channel. You can watch it there. It's pretty awesome.
"Hey, are you hitting something?"
I see life lessons from that
wish the developers would see this
Holy crap Arumba you edited, this is really well done.
just Shows that paradox should Maybe start to fix a lot of Thing bevore adding more and more dlcs
Math bachelor: finally I'm out of my classes, now I can rest and play some Eu4 for fun
This video:
HOLY CRAP that's good editing!
I found this very enlightening and fascinating, thank you a lot Arumba. My problem is, I usually miss the sweet spot where it matters. I am usually being drawn to play OPMs or other small countries. Think Lübeck/Hansa or Hamburg or Riga (Hamburg being my go to nation since it's my hometown). So in the beginning, as you stated, manpower is more of an issue than ducats - the latter I have, the former I don't. So discounting mercs I'd go for a decent amount of cav.
Then there's the end game where nothing really matters anymore except for speed in world conquest. Enemy army composition better than mine? Well, I am ahead in mil tech and have thrice the amount of units. So yeah, I don't care.
But of course there is a sweet spot in midgame inbetween. One where overambitious small nations will falter. You got the manpower to field a non-merc army but cannot really compete with the big guns. And I lost quite a game after a good start. Maybe this understanding will help me. After all, even if I don't have my 15 extra inf in battle, I may be able to field them quickly enough to support a major battle.
So, I think this is the best system (ALL assuming this is from left to right):
Cavalry: Oh huh, I can't shoot. Hey infantry/artillery on my right, move to the left of the cavalry line. Oh you're a cavalry? Did the unit on your right take damage today? If not, have them move to the left of the cavalry line, unless they're cavalry too.
Infantry/Artillery: Oh huh, I can't shoot. Can the artillery behind me shoot? No? To the reserves! I'll refill the width if reinforcements arrive.
Cavalry/Artillery: I'm being shot by newcomers! Is there a unit to my left? If there is, I'll move to the reserves and redeploy tomorrow on the flank!
I must admit as I was getting into EU many years ago this is exactly how I thought cav functioned. Because it just makes sense for a flanking unit to work this way.
I really don't understand why Paradox kept their god awful combat system for all this time despite numerous major DLCs already released into the game. Such a simple(yes coding it isn't actually difficult) change will make such a huge difference. Right now I just don't pay too much attention to combat beyond generic numbers advantage and modifiers like discipline, morale and tactics because the combat system is so awful that it will just do its own thing rather than what logic dictates it should.
why don't you code up a game better than theirs
@@theTranscendentOnes because obviously the fix should be simple, but the whole game is complicated...
The combat is piss poor thanks to forts, non ending reinforcements that the AI abuse, merc spam, no manpower, AI that ignores FOW and will never attack a bad position
@@sandrothenecromancer6810 Can we also talk about how every man, woman and child is ready to die for their country all at once even after you smash their armies and raze provinces? Rebels seem to mobilize nationwide immediately so that, if you ever have a devastating war and take some provinces, you run the risk of losing them to 16k rebels spawning all at once. Lets not talk about the dice rolls.
Also, it sucks that the only thing good about this game is the historical references and map painting, there's not much to do outside of conquest and diplomacy isn't all that in depth. Honestly, HoI is more of a living world than this and the combat system is much better.
i always suspected there was something wrong with cavalry but my god i didn't realise just how crap they actually are, very informative vid thanks
Literally 3 hours of coding work max to implement those changes. Add a day to test and fix bugs. Doesnt fit into a DLC plan tho so probably never gonna happen but would make sense
Cant somebody make a mod?
I want this. I want this if it takes eu5, if It takes eu6. This is better battle ai
Wow. That spreadsheet really helped. Crazy system
*Screams in Polish*
What would be nice is if you could set priority for each of the different units to be hitting something in front. For example, artillery gets priority 1 for back row, and 3 for front row, cavalry gets priority 3 for back row, and 1 for front row. Infantry gets priority 2 for back row and 2 for front row. All of these priorities should be able to be interchanged by the player in the military screen. That way, if cavalry is not hitting something, it will always move the artillery or infantry blocking it from hitting something aside. This also allows for cavalry to not get stuck in the back row, and for artillery to not be moved to the front row when you have cavalry in reserves. With this in place it'll make battles a lot more realistic and allow for cavalry to shine up to the 1700s, where it would be impractical for most people as artillery and infantry combat effectiveness would outclass cavalry's cost, and minuscule buff when compared to the artillery and infantry.
Amazingly explained. Cheers.
Great info, thanks a lot for sharing. The only point I disagree, I usually have more problems with manpower than with ducats. Unless I'm pretty sure I'll be in peace for a long while (ha!), I'll always choose manpower over ducats. I can't begin to count the number of wars that went south because of manpower, or how much more I had to wait to start a war because my manpower was too low, while that's rarely true for Ducats....
Huh, I always thought that units did full damage to everyone in their "attack range" and the point of cavalry was to quickly shrink the enemy flanks, so your force would start taking damage from only a single flank rather then from both.
I also that that flanking range is basically like splash damage, everyone hitting everyone...While cavalry and artillery hit more each time...
This is why I tend to focus primarily on infantry and secondarily on artillery until I will get near a force limit, unless I have particularly good modifiers in something else. A small amount of cavalry then may be practical within the budgetary limits I have. Cavalry also have some limited utility for some special use cases, such as splitting of to reinforce an ongoing large infantry battle slightly sooner than sending the whole force together.
Would make sense but they nerfed Cav by removing any speed advantage, which is utterly rediculous. No interdiction, pursuit, scouting or seizing ground function, so not really Cav.
Forgot to take into account that the flanking range on your cavalry increases with your techs. By the time we get to that pip parity situation you outlined, your cavalry could hit 5 dudes not 2. Totally support the move in mechanic, but just gotta play devils advocate and point out the Calvary would be far more useful than you demonstrated (useful doesn't mean worth it ;p still right about that cost ratio)
Dude you are asome, I just meet you channel yesterday with the Navarra series and Im impressed. All the stuff you know about EU4 its just unimaginable. Keep up the great work. Grettings from Argentina!
pd: sorry for the bad english Im still learning
Why not have the cav be able to hit units in the backrow if the front row unit dies, like they ignore the flanking range and are just able to hit the outermost back row unit if they are unable to hit a front row unit
That's a moot point because if a unit in the front row dies, the unit behind it is automatically forced into the front row. In effect, what you're talking about already happens.
Well it would make sense if the Cavalry can attack the 2nd row directly ... which is a classic pincer move i think. Edit: of course only at the flanks of that enemy army. I might to remember that this happend quite often in real battles of that time, flanking with cavalry and devastating the cannons. Commanders needed to react to such attack with swinging the outer front edges back. Which is of course impossible in EU4
That's like flank attacks with cavalry are supposed to work i think. To roll them up from the sides and from behind if unprotected. However i understand that there is only one combat line and concessions to that must be made.
After close study of the wiki i found things that bothers me with the general comment that cavalry is useless. First the placement of units at the beginning, which happen after a certain algorithm. Cannons are not placed in the first row as example as long there is a unit to place in front, be it infantry or cavalry. Cavalry might end up in the second row if there are too few cannons. That is not really uncommon giving the costs of it.
The combat width is nice but only a part of a large army can fight that smaller one as it concentrate forces in the middle of the battle line. That spells of course doom for cavalry as they are placed on the edges. However it might be useful for the smaller.
However, cavalry get in the late game huge flanking, up to 5, which comes very handy in that scenario. While infantry has max 2 flanking.
I'd say i still keep 4-6 cavalry also they do quite hefty damage in the shock phase. They are kind of shock troops to soften up enemy lines and to destroy their morale.
So in conclusion i'd say, the limiting factors are clearly visible. But its not very new to have infantry most , So first line + 50% reserve. Second line full cannons and half of cannons number cavalry at the edges. Preferable even number.
If you can afford it and are short on manpower, of course only mercenary infantry as they always take highest losses.
Yeah i realise this would be horribly broken, but the game already favours larger armies over smaller one, so maybe as a caveat have this only happen in plains where cav has the ability to wrap around and hit the second row.
This opened my eye to so much, like I used to think artillery took up combat width even while in the back row and I thought cav was way better
I don't know if chat touched on this, but what if you're outnumbered? Would cav packing more punch per unit plus the flanking range change how a battle goes or would they still be better off as infantry?
Kellosian Probably depends in why you are outnumbered. If you’re lacking money you would probably be better of having 2 infantry instead of a cavalry. If manpower is a problem however then maybe.
if manpower, mercs. Every time. Mercs inf are cheaper than reuglar calf and don't cost manpower. Gives you manpower for your cannons
Units can only attack a single enemy. So if you were outnumbered, your cavalry would be just as effective as if you had equal numbers.
@@axelnils I think kellosian meant outnumbered in a individual engagement. In which case, I don't think so because while they can flank further, to my understanding they can still only shoot one target at a time.
+Kellosian
But for me, for most battles, I outnumber my enemy, not the other way around. Partly, that's because I try to target weaker countries in wars of aggression, and partly, it's because I try to target smaller armies when I'm in the war. Even when I fight a larger country (and I just had a war with the Ottomans that scared the crap out of me), I try to avoid equal fights.
With cavalry, I can have that advantage of flanking, which means that I'm likely to win faster while taking fewer casualties, right? (And the latter matters, because I'm likely to be fighting one battle after another.) I can't replace cavalry with artillery, because I do need a front line. I'm not a very experienced player, so I never know how many is enough, but whatever that number is, I need a front line. So this issue is only about replacing cavalry with infantry.
As a player, I think that I'm a lot better at managing my economy than at waging wars. (Certainly, I'm nowhere _near_ as aggressive as Arumba is! Or Quill, either!) The extra cost of a few cavalry units doesn't _seem_ to be very much. And I try to stay at my force limit, so it's not as though I could be recruiting a lot more infantry, instead.
PS. I do use mercenaries, but usually only for emergencies. Maybe I should make better use of them, but they _are_ expensive, and it's really nice to have that ace in the hole, if my regular armies are badly out of position or I need a quick come-back from a loss.
Yes spreadsheets, that is why I am subscribed to this channel. Also another big thing is infantry are stronger in the fire phase which comes first. So at higher techs that gives infantry a huge advantage.
"Manpower is not usually an isssue" This did not age well
Line compression + greater post battle casualties for the enemy would seem to me to be the most reasonable fix. If units in your center are wiped out, the flanks should compress if there are no reinforcements available. That way, you can always attack the enemy flanks any time reinforcements come in, and the only time cavalry are not in combat is if you already have an overwhelming lead. And if your center starts to collapse, your flanks come in, and cavalry is back in combat.
I have actually always assumed those two mechanics were already in play.
Great ideas throughout this video... just saying, it would be kind of hard for Paradox to implement this, they'd have to overwrite a lot of the combat system. I'm having a nightmare just trying to envision how to code it myself (I code videogames as well, its harder than it seems). But I mean, they coded eu4, so if they wanted to they could probably code this.
You should take a look at what the MEIO and Taxes guys did. They made a full cavalry mechanics overhaul for their mod. So it's doable for dedicated moders.
Eu4 would be a lost cause for this but EU5 wouldn't. Also the way he explained his cavalry changes later in the video are actually quite easy for a programmer to implement, everything was laid out in a very logical way. Now I have no idea how well his idea works when someone tries to run non standard armies but I think all of this has merit for future EU games. In saying that I think a quick fix would be to either drop the cost of cavalry down (hello god tier Poland) or rework the cavalry bonuses so they actually end up doing 250% damage compared to infantry.
They shouldn't do full 250% damage, then there would never be a reason to get infantry, but they should do more than 128% or so they do now. Maybe 150% to 200%?
Walpole, IT was you all the time.
Instructions unclear filled army entirely with cavalry
Here is an idea, cav should be support class, such that if you have one cav for every two infantry in the army the infantry would do 1.5 times the damage(or a boost similar to that.) and they can not be engaged if they have no infantry. They would die in stack wipes and be killed at the same rate and the units they support on combats (or a fraction of that rate.)
Great job editing this video arumba. I saw you on twitch ranting about how no one commented abt ur editing. So here you go buddy 👍🏼
Cavalry are better than Infantry, it just that they are less cost-effective.
It's that inefficiency that's the problem though. One cavalry unit is better than one infantry unit on its own; however for the price of two cavalry, you can get five infantry. if, perhaps, you have infinite money but are really tight on manpower (say you're playing as Malindi, Kazan, Kilwa, or colonial Peru, with gold mines but no development) then running your full allotment of cavalry is a good option, but those are exceptions; so to with Poland and its absurd bonuses to cavalry ability.
In the usual scenario, where it's the ducat budget and not the manpower budget that you're worried about, then infantry outstrip cavalry, especially in the later stages of the game when they can contribute to the shock phase themselves.
a use to cav is if you have manchu culture and proper culture provinces :p
I would file that under the "except Poland" clause. +10 Discipline for the low low price of some up-front corruption (until you start eating Korea and Ming it's not like you have an economy anyway) and regular maintenance is an exception that is literally *just* for Manchu and not applicable to the rest of the game.
you don't have to start in the manchu area though.. custom nations are a very beautiful thing, just make 100% cav to infantry ratio in ideas
Yep. And early game they are stronger than later game. A rich nation like France can use cavalry well early on but by tech 10 or so, they tend to not make sense.
EUIV now available on Spreadsheets. Hot Damn! Sign me up!
But what about only artillery? Sure its expensive, and might be less cost efficient when fighting, but it removes the need for seperate siege armies.
On a separate note, there is a minimum price on units, just like coring and so on. Not saying it is likely, but because of that there could be scenarios where price doesn't matter.
And third, cavalry might cost 2.5 times more, but it loots 3 times faster kappa
I believe artillery take double damage if it's in the front lines
Florryworry did a Smolenks cannon only run. The problem with cannons only is they melt if they can't stack wipe the enemy before the shock phase starts.
Sure, but they also deal twice as much so that evens it out a little
And while Smolensk sure as shit has the best artillery focused ideas, i feel that playing a army like this relies a lot more on discipline because of this than combat ability or fire damage. I think a custom nation with stuff like reduced shock damage recieved and increased discipline can stop the melting from happening.
Arumba\ I don't even play EU4 and yet that explanation was so good I ended up watching the whole video :D Keep up the great work!
why did I waste 30 mins of my life on this, I dont even play Eu4
Suppen Glück did you start playing?
I love it when Arumba does a video like this! MORE please :)
But Arumba.... What about Poland?
Got him there!
Cav irl would flank, and envelop armies, that was their whole purpose, in this game, you route one regiment as a cav regiment, then sit down and drink some tea.
When did you start hating Cav? I'm watching your Byz series and you are using a bunch. Admittedly you really go nuts only once you get the special Cossack cav, but even before that you were using them.
That aside there's plenty of use for Cav. You used a late game 40 width army to "prove" Cav are bad due to the cost, but most of the time in late game you are not limited by cost or manpower so much as you are by force limits, and even within that you are limited to a 40 width front. Although Cav is meant to to losing out to Inf in many ways by late game anyway, it's meant to peak earlier and be phased out as Cav gains Shock faster then Inf gains fire for the first half of the game. You can't just look at endgame tech, conclude that Cav is less powerful there, and backfill that conclusion over the entire game period, you need to compare cav/inf stats at different points in the game to see if they really are bad or not.
Unless you are constantly filling your combat width for the entire game, which is unlikely, there will always be times when Cav's flanking range allows them to attack targets that an Inf in their position would not be able to target at all. In those cases Cav is not just only X% better as you might calculate from comparing their stats alone, they are infinitely better. You could argue if that factor worth the cost, but you didn't seem to address it at all. You could also think about how if Cav are worse on a ducats per effective pip level but better when compared 1 on 1, then you need to have more units of Inf to match an Inf+ Cav force. More units are going to take more attrition, and probably more losses in each battles which all leads to more reinforcing units draining your manpower faster and more WE, which are also factors in winning a war efficiently. You even need to consider the simple extra coordination it takes to manage a greater number if less powerful armies.
The real proof would be to run a series of battle tests ingame against equal cost armies using a mix of all inf vs inf + cav enough times to account for RNG differences, or even better, play out a number of wars so that the factors outside of battle can be included. Although even then you'd need to remember that there are nations besides Poland who get some nice Cav bonuses.
Please make more of the these videos. You are so good at explaining this stuff.
Is that...Windows Vista?
Windows 7
Windows 7 man, I dont think I could watch Arumba if he used Vista. Its like seeing and business man sit down and use windows 8 - not even 8.1... just 8.
Would love it if the cost of cavalry was significantly reduced in provinces with terrain types historically more conducive to rearing large horse populations - ie. especially steppe, but also minor bonuses for grasslands and drylands.
This is why by the late game period IRL cavalry we falling out of favor, and people started using mounted infantry or just using cavalry as scouts. Cavalry did historically become less and less effective over the course of the game's time frame.
But for much of WWI commanders were still looking for that glorious cavalry overrun after breaking the enemy's defenses. Even after the ground became too craterous for the horses.
@Venalitor is right, even in WWI officers were trying to make situations where calvary could do breakthroughs and kill artillery and support.
What is needed is if Cav isn't being opposed they would go hit the 2nd line, directly attacking any artillery if the flanks fall....that would make them really useful and effective.
"Cavalry is useful before, during, and after the battle”
- Napoleon Bonaparte
“Without cavalry, battles are without result”
- Napoleon Bonaparte
The Napoleonic Era is when this game ends. Cavalry was an essential part of battle throughout the entire period of EU4.
Cavalry fell out of favor in the 1900's not the 1800's. It was only the invention of rapid loading fire arms that took away cavalry's ability to function. It only became obsolete though when tanks became reliable enough to act as a substitute.
@@Leivve And even then, there were specialized roles in which cavalry remained effective into the second world war. Armed with anti-tank weapons and dismounting before combat, cavalry could force armor to wait for infantry, and they could manage terrain that motor vehicles could not.
On a related note, my grandfather was a veteran of the Great War. He was trained as an artilleryman, but when actually deployed, his primary assignment was care and use of the draft horses which moved field pieces. He had been a farmer and rancher before the draft, so livestock management wasn't something he had to learn. This function was fully mechanized for the US Army between the wars, but most countries did not accomplish this. Horses were a flexible battlefield tool for all but the most recent history.
We were bad but now we're good.
You completely forget about stacking bonuses though lol, and also money is absolutely irrelevant if you play your game right.
Cav is WAY more powerful for at _least_ half the game, depending on nation and ideas and other bonuses.
What _is_ correct, though, is that 4 cav is the ideal number in an army.
And no, 20/0/20 is not just a template to throw out there as "the right one" either (haven't watched more than 3 minutes but I know others tries to sell this point without knowing what they're talking about). You need to protect your cannons or you're f'ked. 20/4/16 is a much better setup, and ratios from thereon. Obviously late game when you face 50k stacks (if you do), you have dedicated inf/cannon units and pay attention to the battles.
If you're western tech, you might want to phase out cav end game and focus on fire instead of shock.
Stacking: I'll explain this extremely simplified: What's better, 2x0.2 or 2x2? Yeah exactly. This is why cav is _awesome_ with a correct shock focus and/or ideas for the first half of the game. AND they hit many more targets than infantry AND it's much easier to stackwipe units with cav (due to the amount of damage they are able to do over a short amount of time).
I have 3k hours and I'm sure there's others who have way more. But I highly suspect anyone that has actually _done_ this instead of _avoiding_ actually _testing_ it out throughout their games will veer towards my point here. You can't just do random maths and not do it properly, nor take into consideration every choice you make throughout the game.
The example at around 6 minutes: That's not at all how armies deploy every time. Cav will place themselves more narrowly more often than not, at least on max width. Also in this example the enemy army is quite smaller. AND it is assumed here that it is NOT a good thing to collapse the enemy flanks quicker (which obviously reduces morale quicker and thus contribute more quickly to a complete stack wipe). AND units will relocate themselves as battle progress.
I don't HAVE to be pedantic about everything, but it's quite annoying when it's a video that so many people will see, and then this is presented like "cav sucks" when it is obvious he (Arumba) would go a full cav army for most of the game IF it cost the same as infantry and had no ratio penalties... new players might see this and never utilize a great asset to their campaigns.
Edit: 8 minutes something in: No, artillery is absolutely useless for the first 2-3 techs in battle. Using your own argument (but actually being more relevantly "mathed" this time) you're much better off using more infantry. Cannons for the first period is for sieging.
10 minutes: Again, "the total number of pips".... this is absolutely irrelevant in a pre-planned setup. For an experienced player, you choose discipline or morale depending on your setup (related to manpower, forcelimit, national ideas, etc). This in turn affects _which unit you choose_ and if you have, say, national ideas that give you shock damage, you obviously choose infantry that has more shock pips (and depending on age/tech). Defensive pips is absolutely irrelevant if you're good at fighting wars and/or will win any war of attrition, or already have a good offensive focus. Seriously, stop oversimplifying things when backing up statements just to win "truth creds" or however I should put it! I kinda don't care that much (I just love writing) but at the same time also a bit annoyed by behaviour like this. "What really matters though, is the total pips". No. Absolutely not. Lol
What the hell man xD This has been seen 287 000 times. Wonder how many people watch this and swallow every bit...
I mean I should really care because it won't affect me... but I just reall hate spreading of misinformation, biased and unneuanced...
10:11 Then you focus on Tercio VS Scwarze Reiter lol. Convenient that you do this (tech 14, 2 techs after Reiter, and the newest inf) is it not? Latin Caracole 2 techs after that having 3 offensive pips (stacking even more).
Thanks for the information! I only have like 300 hours and i only got 5000 dev with the ottomans and i was really frustrated with my army, i used quality, quantity, defensive and offensive and STILL i had trouble fighting. I had usually 54k men (used this mid game until late game), using 25-10-19. (Yup. Not very effective). In the end i found out that 4 cavs will get the work done. Again, thanks for helping!
These videos are why I love you Arumba!
Inb4 Siu-king fans claiming cav is op with a lot of exploits
Inb4 Arumba fans claim that full cav armies are worse than full inf armies (if you have 100%cav ratio)
This is quite a spot on explanation. Only a few minor details left out, like that reserve troops take passive morale damage every day but ok, the argument itself is still perfectly valid. Also cav are actually slightly faster (or infantry is slightly slower than cav and art). Not a big difference, just having +1 maneuver under very specific circumstances.
I kinda love this system a lot actually especially because it's extremely simple - all those tiny details are there, but ideally they only matter to a small degree. It makes them more satisfying / impressive when they have an impact, like that crazy italy-ottoman war in one of the recent videos but in the end just having the bigger army is all all one needs to know to win most of the time.
CK2 as well. It took me years to even bother figuring out what's actually happening in the battles. And I really appreciate to have been allowed to do that. Very very few strategy games have ever allowed the player to care so little about the combat. That was always that thing everything was traditionally designed around and often at the expense of everything else.
_Very very few strategy games have ever allowed the player to care so little about the combat._
I'm not sure I see that, since I still get beaten badly if I don't pay a _lot_ of attention to the details. I'm not a very experienced player, and it seems to me that I really _do_ have to care a lot about the combat.
On the other hand, I agree with your general idea, I think. I'm not a wargamer. I get bored by combat games. What I love about EU4 is the economic and development stuff, and I'm never happier than when colonizing. (I'm playing as the Kongo now, and I played as the Creek nation before that, so there were tons of places to colonize all around me in both games.)
I _like_ developing my country. That interests me. The combat is necessary, but... I don't enjoy it that much. It's just something that I have to do sometimes, in order to expand (or, in the case of the Creek, to defend myself). And it's harder to pay attention when something doesn't interest me, so maybe you're right. I'm doing OK in the game, despite that. So you might be absolutely right.
There's not really that much to gain by figuring it all out, you can just do the same things just with smaller numbers or fewer allies. And that will automatically come with experience over time. You can also always just loose wars. It's usually not the end of the world. I've been playing games for decades and I'd have to think extremely hard to find another game where you can just loose the entire war thing and still end up just fine. In Crusader Kings 2 it's even better, you can always just join anyone instead of fighting them at all. It hurts my brain that it took decades for anyone to even get that idea. :D
I disagree. In his full combat width example from ~ 15:20 onwards, the cavalry army would win, all else being equal. Even late game when cav advantage is at it's least, the cav army will win. His argument only applies if you can't afford to fill your force limit with cav. He'll spend less on his army...but lose the war. His argument only works when his opponent has money problems. The reason players don't use cav late game is the micro to avoid insufficient support, not because they're bad.
Players at mid to late game rarely at their force limit
No they wouldnt. Theyre outnumbered with reserve infantry.
@@ShaunhanM not If U Play MP and have Ur First world war in 1750
Cav don't have great fire stats. Fire becomes the predominant phase of battle in the mid-late game. On day 1 of combat, you're going to do more damage (both manpower and moral damage from losses) to them than they will to you. That means there will be less of them to do damage back to you on day 2. That effect snowballs until you completely destroy the cavalry army. That's why everyone fills their combat width with cannons in the mid-late game.
I actually disagree with his early game assessment of cav. I don't have the numbers, so they may not do 250% more damage to equal their cost, but both fire modifiers and manpower are very low in the early game. Shock is the name of the game early, and cav are the best shock. 4 fire infantry general isn't going to do squat in 1480. 4 shock cavalry general will roll over anyone in his way.
(This is all assuming no insufficient support modifier.)
Manpower is usually a bigger problem than force limit for me, but that's probably because I play as nations with manpower boosting ideas and never pick quantity.
That is wonderful. I hope Paradox actually implements that.
If it can bully itself into the center one of the things I would love is if the bully mechanic worked with the generals maneuver, some form of complexity of the fight for each pip means move x cavs per day so x cavs per day move in. Any cav that can't hit take priority
to make cavalry meaningfull, have them operate outside of the width of regular engagement, just like what happened historically: relatively slow footsoldiers being flanked by way faster cavalry. So if the combat width is 20, you get 20 infantry in your stack minimum, then there's a separate part where cavalry roams. If the opponent has no cavalry and the flanking range is 2, there's 2 spots on each side where cavalry can flank anyway unless countered by the cavalry of the opponent. In this manner cavalry neither needs its cost reduced, nor it's damage increased and it reflects way better how flanking cavalry operated.
And if you did that you could also introduce different Cavalry widths, which would vary by nation, tech and choices. And then make Cav fast again!
@@roryross3878 Now imagine cavalry also flanking the back row
Arumba destroying cavalry with FACTS and LOGIC