A few questions about the campaign

[rebel1233]

For the past few days I've been playing quite some campaigns in Pike and Shot, and frankly, I haven't enjoyed it very much for the reasons I'll specify below.

1. It seems to me that every time I invade an enemy province they get local reinforcements, and yet when they invade me I always seem to get half of my army delayed for some reason. Is the game made so that I'm at a disadvantage? Never once have I had local troops join my sides when defending my province.

2. The enemy armies are often very different in size on the battlefield than what it says on the campaign map. Just the last battle that I quit in despair was a battle in which I attacked a polish army that was in one of my provinces, so local forces couldn't join their side, and while it said 700 infantrymen on the campaign map, they in fact had several 400 and 500 men units on the battlefield.

3. This has more to do with actual battles, but why are haiduks better in melee than the later tercio? It goes against what it says in their stats, but they always seem to destroy my infantry, while often being outnumbered more than 2:1

4. Is there some artificial bonus for the AI so that it gets more resources to raise forces? I find it very disheartening to fight several battles in which I managed to destroy their armies despite all odds and then the next turn, after we raise our new armies, we're practically on the same level of strength. Surely winning battles should have more of an impact than now.

And lastly, after all this, how am I even supposed to win a campaign? I keep winning battles where I'm always at some sort of a disadvantage, but the game just drags on with no end in sight despite my best efforts and successes on the battlefield.

And by the by, I'm playing on the lowest difficulty option.

Thank you for your answers.

[rbodleyscott]

For the past few days I've been playing quite some campaigns in Pike and Shot, and frankly, I haven't enjoyed it very much for the reasons I'll specify below.

Sorry to hear that.

1. It seems to me that every time I invade an enemy province they get local reinforcements, and yet when they invade me I always seem to get half of my army delayed for some reason. Is the game made so that I'm at a disadvantage? Never once have I had local troops join my sides when defending my province.

Both sides follow the same rules for this.

2. The enemy armies are often very different in size on the battlefield than what it says on the campaign map. Just the last battle that I quit in despair was a battle in which I attacked a polish army that was in one of my provinces, so local forces couldn't join their side, and while it said 700 infantrymen on the campaign map, they in fact had several 400 and 500 men units on the battlefield.

All scouting estimates can be in error - by up to 1/3 in either direction. This potential error affects AI decisions as well as the player's.

3. This has more to do with actual battles, but why are haiduks better in melee than the later tercio? It goes against what it says in their stats, but they always seem to destroy my infantry, while often being outnumbered more than 2:1

It depends on the circumstances. Haiduks are not worse than a later tercio in close combat, and they have the advantage of all being armed with muskets. In rough or difficult terrain they will have the advantage over the tercio. Their disadvantage, compared to the tercio, is that they are very vulnerable to cavalry in open terrain, whereas the tercio is pretty much invincible vs cavalry unless disrupted.

In short, if they hide in terrain, don't go in after them. If they are in open terrain, attack them with your cavalry.

4. Is there some artificial bonus for the AI so that it gets more resources to raise forces?

On the higher difficulty levels yes, on the lowest difficulty level the player has the advantage in resources.

[jomni]

For the past few days I've been playing quite some campaigns in Pike and Shot, and frankly, I haven't enjoyed it very much for the reasons I'll specify below.

On the higher difficulty levels yes, on the lowest difficulty level the player has the advantage in resources.

That said, don't be ashamed to lower the difficulty level. I would usually play lower difficulty level in Campaigns compared to single battles.

[Bombax]

I must admit that I find the scale and variability of AI reinforcements in campaigns rather disheartening at times. I often end up playing at a lower level of difficulty to address this, but then the campaign battles often prove TOO easy! I won't embarrass myself by saying what difficulty levels I'm talking about here

Richard was kind enough to explain some time ago how I might adjust the reinforcement levels myself by tweaking the code, but I have to confess that being a bear of little brain I wasn't able to manage it. Probably if I was up to cloning campaigns and tweaking code...I wouldn't need to!

Ideally for me there would be a toggle for reinforcement level (or to switch it off altogether). That would make a very good game even better. But I suspect this is a very minority view!!!

[KateMicucci]

I'm not sure how to actually go about winning a campaign. A battle well-won is usually thrown away through attrition of besieging a province for a measly extra 100 gold taxation.

[Bombax]

I'm not sure how to actually go about winning a campaign. A battle well-won is usually thrown away through attrition of besieging a province for a measly extra 100 gold taxation.

I'd suggest just starting at the easiest level and moving up as you get a better grasp of the campaign dynamics. Worked for me, although I still find the tougher levels...er, tough (to put it mildly)!

[JaM2013]

yeah, true..in my current one as Swedes, i tend to win battles even against overwhelming numerical odds (2:1 Catholic advantage) , but at the other side my units are battle hardened, even reserve pike and shot units, while Swede infantry is Elite now.. yet, AI throws at me bigger armies each year, while up to this point, i only managed to capture Bohemia from them..

just recently my 2000 infantry 1200 cavalry stopped 4000 infantry and 1500 cavalry in open battle, just because i managed to force them into attacking me through a walley, with my commanded shots firing at them from flanks. whole battle i kept my cavalry in reserve, only reacting on Catholic cavalry attempts to outflank my position, and while my infantry took some damage, i managed to break their attacking infantry, then counter-charge with my cavalry to win the battle dealing 48% damage to my 6%..

I think the most important thing in these battles is to properly read terrain, and chose the best place for your battle plan. force them to go through rough terrain before they can get into position, hit them with artillery in flanks (always tend to place artillery on far left or right, to get flanking shots against enemy units trying to fight it off with my infantry..)
If enemy has cavalry parity, i tend to refuse one flank (combining P&S and light infantry units), and concentrate all my cavalry on another one.. then destroy opposing enemy cavalry and roll down his by now engaged infantry.. by the time AI manages to send cavalry from other flank to face me, half their cavalry is gone already, and my cavalry has superior numbers (while their routed units tend to disorder reinforcements )..