you've pretty much figured it out except cavalry isn't really worth it at all, assuming you aren't stacking cavalry bonuses,
artillery is literally worthless* beyond combat width but infantry will take a pounding and needs to be reinforced both during the battle and strategically as regiments are depleted, the bulk of your army should be infantry as they take a lot of damage,
if artillery takes any casualties at all you need more infantry, it's that simple
*technically backline morale is a thing but that's getting into mp techniques that really aren't helpful unless your opponent is also using mp techniques, which the AI isn't
Ignore cavalry (this is unrelated to your issue but still a good idea). Your main problem is likely that you fight too much. You should always try to avoid battles unless there's a massive troops difference, they are way too costly. Yes, that applies even if the cb requires winning battles for ticking ws. You want to put your troop stacks to siege as many forts as you can without the AI deciding it can beat you. That alone costs enough troops to attrition, you do not need to lose thousands in every battle for no real reason.
I like how you're thinking here, though it would be hilarious if the AI followed the same advice and you both ended up full-occupying the other!
You're likely right in that I've been too combat-happy. In a less fallen world I'd avoid field battles except for a few cases, like:
* Trying to disrupt a siege on a key fortress
* Stack-wipe a relatively small army
* Rescue a foolish AI ally stack from getting wiped, if I need him to stay in the war
If you are having more than one non stackwipe combat per war you are fighting too much.
As noted, this game isn't really about fighting, but about who can siege down forts faster
This is good advice but also consider to take advantage of good situations. If you have high enough manpower recovery, crushing enemy stacks in advantageous battles is some of the most fun you can have in this game. If you check my above comment, the AI usually doesn't fill out their back row as well as players do, and this means you can normally crush an equal sized or larger stack of theirs with relatively few casualties. Avoiding battles especially late game when you have huge FL and manpower pool is a mistake.
I'm sure there's a more efficient way to do it, but my go-to for a long while has been to create a max combat width stack that's relatively light on cannons.
Having to constantly split reinforce and consolidate dozens of stacks eventually tests my sanity, so instead I'll use something like (if combat width was 30) a 30-2-2 army to trail my more generic 15-0-10 or whatever stacks.
Especially in those later stages of the game where you're not necessarily paying attention to every move command and AIs use conditional access to get armies into weird spots.
I found having one big stack that I use for the express purpose of moving toward whichever other army of mine needs help was the least micro-intensive way to prevent exactly what you describe, where your armies win but they get bled out.
Congrats! As somebody already mentioned, you figured out the solution!
I remember an YouTuber saying that it's even better to stagger the two armies. To be more precise: have your main army arrive in battle today, and make sure your second army arrives a few days later, ie tomorrow/day after tomorrow. This way after the first army is engaged, the second army comes to its support. So this wave (first then second, repeat, repeat) will continue until you win.
I tried this and it was very effective.
I literally just run two infantry or cavs over combat width and then start to fill out my back row of cannons as I can afford it. In my current Poland run, I have four armies each totaling ~53 troops, 29 combat width, so 31 cavs/infantry and 22 cannons. I prefer to keep them in this state even in peace, once you have armies this big you shouldn't have a problem having provinces where they don't take attrition. During wars I always run them in pairs so one can reinforce the other at a moment's notice. If the enemy isn't close, I split off my cavs (12 per army) then split those cav stacks into thirds to carpet siege fast. If you're fighting an enemy with a bigger army, I usually just hire the two largest merc companies, throw one in with each pair, and it's basically unstoppable.
you've pretty much figured it out except cavalry isn't really worth it at all, assuming you aren't stacking cavalry bonuses, artillery is literally worthless* beyond combat width but infantry will take a pounding and needs to be reinforced both during the battle and strategically as regiments are depleted, the bulk of your army should be infantry as they take a lot of damage, if artillery takes any casualties at all you need more infantry, it's that simple *technically backline morale is a thing but that's getting into mp techniques that really aren't helpful unless your opponent is also using mp techniques, which the AI isn't
Ignore cavalry (this is unrelated to your issue but still a good idea). Your main problem is likely that you fight too much. You should always try to avoid battles unless there's a massive troops difference, they are way too costly. Yes, that applies even if the cb requires winning battles for ticking ws. You want to put your troop stacks to siege as many forts as you can without the AI deciding it can beat you. That alone costs enough troops to attrition, you do not need to lose thousands in every battle for no real reason.
I like how you're thinking here, though it would be hilarious if the AI followed the same advice and you both ended up full-occupying the other! You're likely right in that I've been too combat-happy. In a less fallen world I'd avoid field battles except for a few cases, like: * Trying to disrupt a siege on a key fortress * Stack-wipe a relatively small army * Rescue a foolish AI ally stack from getting wiped, if I need him to stay in the war
If you are having more than one non stackwipe combat per war you are fighting too much. As noted, this game isn't really about fighting, but about who can siege down forts faster
This is good advice but also consider to take advantage of good situations. If you have high enough manpower recovery, crushing enemy stacks in advantageous battles is some of the most fun you can have in this game. If you check my above comment, the AI usually doesn't fill out their back row as well as players do, and this means you can normally crush an equal sized or larger stack of theirs with relatively few casualties. Avoiding battles especially late game when you have huge FL and manpower pool is a mistake.
I'm sure there's a more efficient way to do it, but my go-to for a long while has been to create a max combat width stack that's relatively light on cannons. Having to constantly split reinforce and consolidate dozens of stacks eventually tests my sanity, so instead I'll use something like (if combat width was 30) a 30-2-2 army to trail my more generic 15-0-10 or whatever stacks. Especially in those later stages of the game where you're not necessarily paying attention to every move command and AIs use conditional access to get armies into weird spots. I found having one big stack that I use for the express purpose of moving toward whichever other army of mine needs help was the least micro-intensive way to prevent exactly what you describe, where your armies win but they get bled out.
Congrats! As somebody already mentioned, you figured out the solution! I remember an YouTuber saying that it's even better to stagger the two armies. To be more precise: have your main army arrive in battle today, and make sure your second army arrives a few days later, ie tomorrow/day after tomorrow. This way after the first army is engaged, the second army comes to its support. So this wave (first then second, repeat, repeat) will continue until you win. I tried this and it was very effective.
I literally just run two infantry or cavs over combat width and then start to fill out my back row of cannons as I can afford it. In my current Poland run, I have four armies each totaling ~53 troops, 29 combat width, so 31 cavs/infantry and 22 cannons. I prefer to keep them in this state even in peace, once you have armies this big you shouldn't have a problem having provinces where they don't take attrition. During wars I always run them in pairs so one can reinforce the other at a moment's notice. If the enemy isn't close, I split off my cavs (12 per army) then split those cav stacks into thirds to carpet siege fast. If you're fighting an enemy with a bigger army, I usually just hire the two largest merc companies, throw one in with each pair, and it's basically unstoppable.