Polih-Lithuanian Army size!! OMG it is huge`

[marek1978]

Hey

i had a look at great norther war and it seems that Polish-Lithuanian Comonwealth army is 70 000 big.

With loads of quality infratry,,,,,

It is bigger then russian and better in a sense of quality

it is a nice flavour for me as a Pole but i would say it is quite ahistorical i gueass

Size is at least twice to big

and quality...

Come on guys - infratry back then was still lacking and using old muskets, while the cavalerry was in tatters after great war with ottomans....


i would definitly improve russian army while cuting polish a bit in size and quality - this could be expanded with reforms in a future as it happened in real life

[Searry]

Maybe it's to balance the game a bit? Heheh.

[Pocus]

Is it based on your impression or you have sources to cite, because I believe the beta testers would have spotted the 'issue'...

[PhilThib]

Maybe it's to balance the game a bit? Heheh.

IIRC it is more a balancing issue than anything else, the Swedes are just too strong as they are and won all beta games in 3 years...may be other ways could be explored

Feel free to make suggestions as to what delayed / prevented the Swedish overall and fast victory against the Poles if they had such a worse army

[marek1978]

Well - i am not an expert.

i read some books on hisory of polish swedis wars and history of polish army

mostly by a polish academic - Pawel Wimmer

http://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/294237/h ... -roku-1864


my basic knowledge is:

1) polish army was highly efective miliatry force in most of the XVII century. After the crisis during the cossack and swedish wars (1648-1660) it went through the series of reforms whitch enable army to get big victories in wars against Russia and Turkey.
Reforms conducted mostly by Jan III sobieski included reforms of infratry that combine wester european and swedish experience. Infratry was organised in to small regiments acting as battalion and equpied with quality muskets. Number of pikeman was redused and intrantry was used mostly with its firepower combing force with higly effective cavalery and mobile artilery.

Army size was flutuent - between around 25 000 and 55 000.
with average of 40 000 -( around 20 000 infrantry, around 10 000 dragons and around 10 000 quality schock cavalery ) army inluded number of cossack units


2) in late XVII century general political criss of the country ( uneefctive parliament, lack of strong administration) had enourmous effcets on the army - it was unpaid - with low morale

lack of finacial resources made reformf of the army lacking. Even though flint rifles with bayonet startet to be brought to units aroun 1695 by 1700 they reached only guards units.
Procces of upgrading infrantry to the modern standarts was finished around 1706/1708.
What helped the proces was fact that saxon army was recruting soliders in poland. there was a number of poles and lithuanins who served in saxon army, saxon military drill was brought to the polish infrantry. Uniforms ware changed and by 1706/1708 polish -lithuanian infrantry was was having flint rifles with bayonets and wearing black tricorns on their head.

Cavalery was still having quality military doctrine but was demorlized.


My point is that Comonwelath force at the bigging of 1700 should be around

40 000 big - half of that infrantry.
Only certain units should be moder infrantry - fusiliers and guards and some regulura infrantry.
The rest should represent quality of the russian strielty units

Duirng the course of war infrantry should grayuale upgrade tthe modern quality.
Number of dragons could be expanded.
Country should be able to buy artilery and enginiers.
and military reforms shouls be allowed ( as they are in the game) to expand army to the bigger size


during the course of war Comwelth was ably to moblile big army ( betwen 55000 and 10 0000)

it happned relitivly easy as it was eassy to recruit numbe of szlachta cavalery units ( cavalery militia)


as for the balnace of the game:

1) Sweden was actualy much stronger and could won the war until like 1705/1707)
Even though charles XII was great tactician he was not great strategist

Some of his generalas were realy incapable.
So one thing to do is to

A) limit capabilites of some swedish generals and increase capabilites of certain saxon , russian and polish comanders
B) increase size of the russian army ( at least by 80 percent) and give it number of quality units from begging ( elite new style units existed right from the start)
C)make it hard for sweden to control conqured territory - Charles XII was unable to mass huge army as he had to spread his foirces aroung the country side to control it - it was especialy true in poland where evry time swedish army went away militian units were poping ( so number of militia regimnts could pop up behing swedis line if the cities were not having swedis regular force)
D) perhaps it shoul be really hard for sweden to conduct 1700 invasion of denmark)


anyway that are jus some small sugetion -

game is great, i am really impresed and i pay respect to you and i will do my best to persuede othe people to try it

respect, respect, respect



t

[PhilThib]

Thanks very much for all the suggestions, will transfer them to the team and they could make it into a patch for sure

[vaalen]

I agree with Marek regarding the size of the Polish army in the game. And I have some ideas. In preparation of this game, I bought and read a number of sources, including Robert Frosts hugely expensive but very informative work, The Northern Wars, two biographies of Karl XII, written from the Swedish viewpoint, a biography of Peter the Great that describes The great Northern War in detail, and A warrior dynasty, a book focusing on the Swedish way of war during this period, with a lot of it focusing on the Great Northern War.

Karl won every battle he fought until Poltava. But his generals lost a lot of battles, especially to the Russians, who essentially conquered all of Sweden's holdings outside of Sweden and Germany, while Karl was mired in Poland, for at least five years. The Polish forces that fought Karl in pitched battles were ususally quite small, and most of the battles Karl
fought in Poland were against Saxons, sometimes supported by Poles, often combined with Russians sent by Peter.

The King of Poland was also the elector of Saxony, and most Poles did not want any part of the war, but he got them into it.

But the real problem for the Swedes was not battle, but supply, and the sheer size of Poland. Karl was a great tactician, but he ignored logistics for the most part, and often had his army make forced marches on little or no food. The soldiers under his command were often hungry, wet, and cold, and many of them died from this.

Karl could only be in one area at a time, and he usually lost control of a Polish area when he left it. Sometimes he left garrisons, but they were too small to control the very hostile countryside.

Augustus tried ot make peace after the first defeats, but Karl demanded that Augustus abdicate the Polish throne. Karl was mired in Poland for five years, and the war did not end until Karl invaded Saxony, which forced Augustus to make peace on terms acceptable to Karl In the meantime, Russian had taken nearly all of the Swedish lands on the east shore of the Baltic, and founded Saint Petersburg.

I suggest that the Swedes lose contorl of areas in Poland that they do not occupy, and that Karl must invade Saxony to get Poland to make peace.

I also think the Swedish supply problem for the army commanded by Karl could be addressed by giving Karl a negative trait that causes his army to suffer attrition whenever he moves in Poland or Russia.

The scenario should never be played with easy supply.

I think these changes could make it much more difficult for the Swedes, and solve the balance problem in a more historical way than giving the Poles a large professional quality army with good infantry, which they simply did not have.

Just my thoughts.

I would not make it harder to conquer Denmark at the beginning of the war, though I like most of Maret's suggestions.

[PhilThib]

Good and great ideas from you both. Will convey them to the team for an inclusion in the first patch

[Searry]

Good ideas in this thread but I wouldn't give a trait which would give attrition to Karl. Instead I would give him the old corrupt trait but with a new flavor text.

[PhilThib]

Good ideas in this thread but I wouldn't give a trait which would give attrition to Karl. Instead I would give him the old corrupt trait but with a new flavor text.

Good point indeed. Now we have to see if this particular trait can be made area-restricted...if not we would make it general and Karl would suffer it everywhere.

What about "Careless" as the trait name (the effect would remain the same)

[Searry]

Good ideas in this thread but I wouldn't give a trait which would give attrition to Karl. Instead I would give him the old corrupt trait but with a new flavor text.

Good point indeed. Now we have to see if this particular trait can be made area-restricted...if not we would make it general and Karl would suffer it everywhere.

What about "Careless" as the trait name (the effect would remain the same)

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't area restrict him, instead make it happen everywhere. I would also reduce the stats of the different Swedish generals especially Rehnskiöld and lower his seniority.

[vaalen]

Good ideas in this thread but I wouldn't give a trait which would give attrition to Karl. Instead I would give him the old corrupt trait but with a new flavor text.

Good point indeed. Now we have to see if this particular trait can be made area-restricted...if not we would make it general and Karl would suffer it everywhere.

What about "Careless" as the trait name (the effect would remain the same)

It is important, in my opinion, to restrict this trait, whether it is a new trait or a modified corruption trait, to Poland and Russia, if possible. If it cannot be area based, i still think he should have it, as it was his eventually fatal flaw as a general.

The reason is that Karl's army did not suffer these major attrition losses outside of Poland and Russia. In Germany and Denmark, if was much easier to find and steal the food supplies of the local population, as the pickings were much better, and the population was less adept at hiding their food supplies. In territory that had been part of the Swedish empire before the war, his army did not suffer these kind of losses, due to an existing support system with depots, etc.

I like the idea of a "careless" trait very much, as it fits Karl perfectly. It was his great flaw as a general. Peter the great exploited this trait to defeat him, by avoiding combat and devastating the areas Karl was marching towards. A huge supply train had been sent to sustain the Swedes, escorted by a small army, but Karl kept moving away from the train, refusing to move towards it like most generals would have done. He was besieging the town of Poltava, which meant that the supply train could finely gain ground on him. However, Peter attacked and wiped out the supply train. He also appears to have let a number of the troops that had been escorting the train escape, so they could join Karl and make his supply situation even worse, which they did.

By the time the battle of Poltava was fought, the Swedish army had been decimated by hunger and actual starvation, and the elite Swedish troops were weak and sick. The Swedes were driving the Russians back during the early part of the battle, and Peter considered retreating. He noticed how ragged and tired the advancing Swedish lines looked, and how outnumbered they were, and ordered a general attack. The Swedes broke, for the first time under Karl, being worn out and weak from hunger.

[vaalen]

Good and great ideas from you both. Will convey them to the team for an inclusion in the first patch

Thank you. This is another of the glories of AGEOD,, the love you and Pocus have for the games, your willingness to consider ideas from the players, and to respond positively to good ideas, always with the goal of making the games better.

[Morgan]

This is the first time that I have ever seen someone request a "nerf" for their own country in a wargame.

[marek1978]

Hey guys.

I did some additional reading about the size of opposing forces back then.

1)
Polish army is too big and to professional, Russian is to small and lack to much quality.

Poles did not have enough of well equipped and trained infantry back then. During the early years of war - up until 1706 army was equipped with flintlock and bayonets and dressed and trained - by Saxon officer.
To stimulate that - Poles should have 50 percent of current infantry. Only part of it should be modern flint locks.
Rest should be possible to upgrade - whether gradually or with decisions payed with WS, Money and recruits.
Most of the polish infantry should strieltsly level at the beginning of the war.
Processes of upraising could be pictured with graphics - at the begging - eastern style looking infantry. After transformation - western style with tricorn.
I attach two pictures from the books i read as a child - one is with 1683 polish forces ( they tend to look like that at around 1700. Other with 1706 polish infantry men)

2) Russian army should be twice as big. And it should have some quality modern infantry ( new style regiments created by Peter) number of those experiment should rise steadily

3) Both Poles and Russian should have more artillery and more siege trains, they should be able to produce sapper units and siege trains. they should have more inland transport boats. And both countries should have more Cossack cavalry and Cossack infantry.

I know that balance of the game is bit of the problem as Swedes tend to win easily. Doubling size of Russian army would not only be historical but as well would balance the game.
The other thing to balance the game would be making Saxon force bit higher quality - with the guards units. Poles and Russians should be able to raise guards units as well. It might be, as well for theam easire to build redoubts?
Maybe another way of making game bit more ballanced is to limmit swedish number of recruitments?

[Searry]

The Swedes were very adept in conscripting their population compared to other nations. I wouldn't nerf this but your other ideas sound good.

[Temgesic]

Good ideas in this thread but I wouldn't give a trait which would give attrition to Karl. Instead I would give him the old corrupt trait but with a new flavor text.

Good point indeed. Now we have to see if this particular trait can be made area-restricted...if not we would make it general and Karl would suffer it everywhere.

What about "Careless" as the trait name (the effect would remain the same)

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't area restrict him, instead make it happen everywhere. I would also reduce the stats of the different Swedish generals especially Rehnskiöld and lower his seniority.

Reduce Rehnskiölds stats? Reduce his strategic rating in that case at the most. He was almost second in command after Karl XII, he won many victories, many of them decisive and nearly always outnumbered. So no i wouldn't touch his stats, as i said maybe lowering his strategic rating at the most to a 3-4. And if thouching his off/def stats then would give 4-1,
as he was very offensive in his command. So maybe a 4-4-1?

[Temgesic]

Funny reading all this about "nerf" the Swedes, "They are too strong" etc etc. What do you expect? Sweden had one of the most/if not the most well drilled army in Europe at this time period. The system Charles XI created during his reign was a system that many other countries copied afterwards. A very sucessfull system indeed.

[Searry]

I think it makes the scenario more interesting if we "nerf" Sweden.

[vaalen]

Funny reading all this about "nerf" the Swedes, "They are too strong" etc etc. What do you expect? Sweden had one of the most/if not the most well drilled army in Europe at this time period. The system Charles XI created during his reign was a system that many other countries copied afterwards. A very sucessfull system indeed.

I would not nerf the Swedes tactically. But they did suffer greatly from attrition when under Karl's direct command, and this made their defeat at Poltava possible.

I will also point out that they lost a lot of battles to the Russians. The Russians conquered the entire Swedish empire outside of Scandinavia and Germany. They won afew battles, and were always outnumbered. But they lost more of them, and most of their overseas empire was conquered,. By the Russians.

Rather than nerfing the Swedes tactically, I favor larger and better Russian armies, changes to reflect the difficulty of controlling Poland, and the supply problems which undid them, in the end.

[BuckTurgidson]

The Swedes were over extended under Charles XII, fighting for too long on too many fronts. Their quality edge was hard to maintain in long wars.

[Temgesic]

The Swedes were over extended under Charles XII, fighting for too long on too many fronts. Their quality edge was hard to maintain in long wars.

Yes Sweden was overextend because there didn´t exist enough manpower to defend the whole Empire.
But we must also keep in mind that Charles was a great tactician but not a great strategist.

For example, why didn´t he follow Peter I after the battle at Narva and crushed the Russians and forced them to a devastating peace. Instead he went down along Livland, Courland and in to fight Poland. It doesnt make any sense to me at all.
Several of his Generals wanted to go after the russians but the almighty king said NO!

[HHFD50]

"careless trait"? debuffs for Karl? Noooooo! He should be a 7-7-7- never mind a 6-6-6, BUFF him! He should just get the "Chuck Norris" trait meaning all he needs to do is look at the enemy and he wins!

[pancerni]

This is an interesting discussion on several levels. Primarily the game should represent both the size and quality of both the Russians and Poles as accurately as possible. Clearly the Swedes were better in quality than their opponents and Charles and perhaps some of his subordinates were tactically superior to their counterparts. The purpose of the game in the aggregate is to determine if you, as a player, given the same resources as either Charles or Peter, could prevail, making the correct strategic choices and taking advantage of opportunities as they arise. The game is not intended to simply replicate history as it unfolded, making Charles either a tactical genius and strategic buffoon. You as the player are either Charles or Peter and you will succeed or fail based on your decisions at the strategic level.

With regard to the size and strength of the Poles...they should be balanced by a recognition that the ongoing disputes between the nobles between support for either Augustus and Charles weakened the Polish forces and once Augustus was deposed those nobles supporting him simply retired to their estates and took their forces with them. At the same time the quality of the Polish cavalry, both hussars and pancerni, was seriously diminished from what it had been throughout most of the 17th century...their quality in the game should reflect that. As a practical matter Charles only took Polish light cavalry with him into Russia.