Dev Diary #44 - Battles

[MfgLuckbot]

Will we be able to calculate the outcome of a battle with a scientific calculator?

I'm 95% sure some random elements will be involved, so at most you could calculate the average outcome.

 

[ranbir]

Maybe after all these years, I'm still an idiot when it comes to playing combat in Paradox games but I'm rarely pulled in to really pay attention to the particulars and lists of potential modifiers; especially when it all falls down to me watching dice rolls with no real influence. I find myself usually managing with just having the larger army; which can also be not very satisfying when I'm told always of the possibility of a smaller force winning if equipped well (but I've rarely seen it)

edit: I hope all the agree actions aren't just to call me an idiot.

 

[Shavius]

Only one battle at a time per front? Isn't that making the war too time consuming? Especially for big countries with a long border, for example Qing and Russia

 

[lordvagrant]

Only one battle at a time per front? Isn't that making the war too time consuming? Especially for big countries with a long border, for example Qing and Russia

One battle preparing at a time per front. For a new battle, units are limited to those not already in a battle. We don't know yet if a general is limited to 1 battle at a time.

 

[Anna_Gein]

To be honest I still do not fully understand how battles & warfare work in Victoria 3. Neither do I understand how, as a player, can I interact with it.

At this point I suppose no amount of Dev diaries will satisfy my curiosity and things will clear up once and only when the game is released so we players can try it for ourselves.

 

[goodcigar]

Considering how interesting American Civil War battles (and the overall war and strategies) were I find this Dev Diary extremely disappointing. This is not going to be received well by Paradox players.

 

[Voodoo Lilium]

Personally I dislike this system as presented. I've been pleased (or at least not annoyed) by everything presented do far in the DD's but war simply doesn't look good at all.

Now, let's look at why I see it like this.

First of all let's see what the intention with these changes from previous games is:

1) to eliminate micro.
2) to better model the "hands off" approach that Vicky3 is taking for state governance into the realm of warfare.
3) to avoid cheese.

And I think it fails at these three things in one way or another:

1) It eliminates micro alright but it does it by basically removing basically all player agency. The player is reduced to telling the AI (and we are talking about Paradox's terrible AI here) to "go ahead" or "stay put" and turning everything into basically modifier stacking.

2) This, IMO, doesn't work for a game. The game expects us to delegate to the generals and hope they'll do what we want with only vague instructions, much like how we are expected to react to the economy and the geopolitical stage by applying indirect pressure to issues to manipulate them, except that this is not how games are. IRL I can delegate matters to someone else, to tell a general (who knows better than me) "plan this war and win it, I'll manage the home front" but in a game (especially one of Paradox's, whose AI isn't anything to write home about) it simply removes ones capability to do things the smart way (and I'm not talking about cheesing the game here!). I can't trust an AI general to do a good job because the AI general has the brainpower of a gnat, if not less.

To illustrate this let me give an example from Vicky2:
It was the Great War, the alliance of Italy (me), Rusia and Spain stood against France, the Austrian lead german nations and a few other minor allies (eg Netherlands). All told our respective military power was very close with our biggest advantages being Italy's navy overwhelming control of the Mediterranean and Spain's gigantic standing army versus the Austrian's numbers of high quality troops and the French defensive lines in the south.
As the war started and Austrian forces clashed against the hastily mobilised russians a combined french and austro-germsn offensive struck the Alps, thr italian army held their ground... Until they didn't.
Once a breakthrough was achieved (after most of the available italian reserves had already been committed), the superior defensive positions of the italian army were of no use, individual armies were encircled and destroyed piecemeal as both fronts disintegrated and the Italian army started a general retreat.

Here in Vicky3 we would simply have X amount of provinces be occupied and then the fron would continue to push backwards, the Italian army basically dead already as magical numbers™ simply tickled down whereas even with Vicky2's not-very-good system allowed more leeway. So going back to the story; the Italian army retreated in good order, using fortifications and geographical advantages to bleed the enemy (which required for the sacrifice of s number of armies) all the way to Sicily as they abandoned continental Italy with the cover of the navy.
Thus Italy found itself with its heartland occupied but the control of the islands and more importantly, the colonies, was maintained. It was then simply a matter of raising more troops by way of the colonial populations and wait for the russian breakthrough (whatever forces the french had committed had already retreated or been destroyed as the combat in the south intensified) and thus a counterattack by way of a naval invasion of the occupied mainland (with some Spanish reinforcements) pushed what remained of the austrian forced out. After that it was simply a matter of continuing.to push into Austria, carefully picking what battles could be won as both countries depleted armies slugged it out.

This was intensive, it was nerve wrecking and more importantly, it was fun. I went from confidence in my victory to desperation as the enemy marched through my country to elation as we pushed them out and from what I'm seeing here this won't be possible in Vicky3.

Now, one may want to argue "but that's because it is realistic, in war you don't win by ingenious plots, you win by a bigger economy and better preparations" which ignored that I had both. My economy was just as bug if not bugger than my enemies' and I had prepared accordingly. It was my navy and the allies I had cultivated which carried the day. But it wasn't just a bunch of ready to use stuff which decided the conflict but how well I used it. Because most wars won't be between two sides where one is overwhelmingly superior and leaving it up to what's basically RNG doesn't sit well with me.

3) Now we finally reach point 3. Well, there is not really much to say but point out hoe this is a waste of time. People will always find a way to cheese the game because the mechanics are never going to be realistic enough and because the AI can never be as smart. It is up to the player to cheese or not and a waste of time to try and prevent them from it.

But then again this is only my personal opinion from what I've seen, not exactly an objective criticism. Simply what I would like the most (just like how many who want Vicky3 to be an spreadsheet simulator are in their right to prefer it that way).

This really both illustrates and sums up how I feel about the system as is. Deatstroke's war here sounds incredibly stressful, dynamic, hands on, and most importantly, FUN. I can definitely sympathize and agree with the general idea of reducing micro, I am definitely not a huge fan of having to micro tons of stacks of troops, which would only be worse with the increased province density, but there has to be a way to achieve this without removing so much player agency that I'm just sitting there watching what the AI does in between dealing with the economy, internal politics, etc.

 

[Markusw7]

Considering how interesting American Civil War battles (and the overall war and strategies) were I find this Dev Diary extremely disappointing. This is not going to be received well by Paradox players.

You can't speak for Paradox players

 

[Voodoo Lilium]

Will we be able to calculate the outcome of a battle with a scientific calculator?

If you can't spreadsheet your way to victory is it really a Paradox game?

 

[Daurien]

I have concerns when it comes to large fronts and realism as well as the ability to accurately model this era's greatest battles. Before ready use of radio, commanding armies spread out over a large area was simply impossible to do quickly, so most advancing armies stayed close together before engaing in battle, where they might spread out. If the only dividing line between fronts are natural barriers, then we can expect to see massive fronts like the American-Rebel front in the ACW or the German-Russian front in the Great War where every soldier is viewed as being everywhere along the front. Similarly, without a good system of telling advancing generals where to advance to, battles will occur in random locations that might not make strategic or even feasible sense. Why should the Army of the Potomic and the Army of North Virginia clash in the middle of Tennessee? (Both of their names reference locations several kilometers east of Tennessee.) Furthermore, most of the great battles in this period occurred when one army had a goal of capturing a specific location or region, with the tactics deployed by each general evolving based on the location. Even in the Great War, battles occurred at locations that made sense, such as the perceived weak points in trenches for the Somme or the limited fortifications of Ypres.

I really think that generals should be assigned to specific regions of a front, with some form of limit on where a region can be. For example, a general can be deployed to the eastern part of the American-Rebel front and fight in or around Virginia, the middle section and fight in or around Tennessee and Missouri, and the western part where they would fight near Texas. Each of these parts would be predefined by a geographical setting that cannot be changed, like the regions of EUIV. Furthermore, an advancing general can only instigate battles in provinces or states in their part of the front, and only soldiers from their part of the front can join as well. Finally, allowing each general to have a specific strategic target such as an important city or strategic feature like a river would really up both the realism and the enjoyment of this system.

 

[Limbojack]

In eu4

Forts are everywhere in eu4

You didn't play Victoria 2, it seems.

 

[FleetingRain]

My biggest gripe is that it feels like the devs are removing micro for the sake of doing it. Randomizing the general modifier in battle, really?

 

[Dennizjoon]

I think the following would benefit the game:
1. Some represenation on the field of battles going down, seeing miniature soldiers and effects from the war on the areas. Say examplewise if you have a 4 year trench warfare that the terrain gets gradully more muddy and destroyed. Causing maybe debuffs resourcewise etc for 10-20 years?
2. The ability to make some decision of movements along the frontlines, with arrows etc. Imagine if terrain playing apart and so you tell your units to concentrate its attack through a valley etc, or maybe go through the forestated areas where the enemy has less defences etc. Would add much flavour.

Would love to hear what you as devs think about these ideas.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Imagine if terrain playing apart

it does. that's where your generals' traits come into play.

 

[BeauNiddle]

1. Some represenation on the field of battles going down, seeing miniature soldiers and effects from the war on the areas. Say examplewise if you have a 4 year trench warfare that the terrain gets gradully more muddy and destroyed. Causing maybe debuffs resourcewise etc for 10-20 years?

Devastation is already in the game - it damages the area and needs to be repaired over time. At the start of the game it is quite small. Late game artillery will be able to devastate massive areas.

As to your other point if you pick a general with a terrain trait then they will try to use that terrain where possible.

 

[Kabian]

i feel that while a defender wont push an attacker if it wins, it should try to recover core lands, even if that means occupying the enemy land (after all, from the nation POV, those lands are rightfully theirs and are liberating them from occupation)

 

[Oglesby]

Not that I've seen other than laws affect it, such as child labor increasing the amount.

I believe pensions were mentioned and disability for vets.

 

[marshman]

the ping pong in paradox combat has always been so tedious for me. Maybe this will be better.
I am willing ot keep an open mind.

 

[zweihander]

The worst and most boring combat system of Paradox games since Europa Universali I.

 

[wilcoxchar]

The worst and most boring combat system of Paradox games since Europa Universali I.

Correct, in the sense that it is better than the system used for all other Paradox games since Europa Universalis I.