Dev Diary #44 - Battles

[AHumpierRogue]

"It's a Society Sim" What is a society but an effort to safeguard against, and prepare for, war? The 19th century was written in blood like any other, an emphasis on "society building" shouldn't preclude combat.

IMO given the current mechanics Victoria 3 should end with the historical death of Victoria, maybe max 1914, as the game clearly is not really meant to show stuff beyond that. A game without a climax.

Also, anyone who thinks this will not be the war system on launch is kidding themselves. They might tweak it, but the skeleton is going to be something like this. They'd probably realize by now if they were going to change it and wouldn't put out a diary with knowledge that the entire thing would be scrapped, or at least so I hope.

 

[Blxz]

The concept of a 'battle timer' just opens the way for so much potential unexpected gaminess down the road. At the very least can you hide this mechanic from the player. Cover it up with some fluff or something? I'd supported the new war concepts until now but if it's just going to be the equivalent of a mechanical hourglass that turns back and forth semi-regularly then you clearly are just making similar mistakes to Imperator and all the other overly gamified mechanics released over the years.

I'd even prefer the HOI4 Air-Combat/naval combat blackbox concept where battles occur unpredictably as opposed to a definite countdown as shown above.

 

[lordvagrant]

1. As long as the other generals are stationed at the front and not in battle their units may be borrowed like the garrisons.

So this implies that multiple battles can happen on a front, if a battle already in progress has not finished before the battle timer triggers another battle. Is a general limited to commanding a single battle (meaning that any other battles on that front must be commanded by another general, or have no general), or can he command multiple battles (possibly with a distraction modifier), so long as the units involved are not in another battle.
If a general can only command 1 battle, it gives a reason to assign multiple generals to a front.
If multiple battles occur on a front, are the following battles more likely to occur in different states on that front? Hopefully there is something that prevents a second battle from occurring in a province with an ongoing battle.
When capturing provinces, are they always located around the battle province? If a front has lost territory on the north end, and a battle occurs on the south end, resulting in a victory, will provinces be captured in the south, or recaptured in the north? If the general had Defensive orders winning in the south, since he cannot advance into enemy owned provinces, will he capture nothing or somehow magically push back an enemy 4 states to the north?
If there is no opposition on a front, and a general has Advance orders, does he have to wait for a battle to break out before capturing provinces? I suppose there is at least a token state militia to oppose him, and his scouting ability/units will determine how soon a battle will occur, and winning decisively against a vastly inferior force could result in more provinces captured.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I have no idea if they are or not. My post was not intended for interacting with the devs. It was a comment about the people here saying DD 0 would excuse warfare being neglected.
I have no idea how the warfare system will be at release. Maybe it will feel unfun and be unsatisfying to use, but will produce results that fit the wars of the era; if that is the case, I will personally accept it, but I know many people will not. Or maybe it will be unfun, unsatisfying, and also fail to model the wars of 1830-1930; this would make it an objectively bad system. Either system might be the product of a lot of work by the devs. Or it might be the product of deciding to neglect this part of the game. I have no way of knowing, and hence was speaking in regards to hypothetical situations, addressing the way some here are seemingly trying to deflect any reasonable questions about or possible feedback on warfare because ‘it isn’t the main point of the game’.

i get what you're saying and you've probably noticed the numerous threads and suggestions around this.

but the feedback in this particular thread seems to miss the point of the game and the point of DD...um...um...22:

'...anything you can gain through war should also be possible to gain through diplomacy...'

in a nutshell, the game isn't about war.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

The 19th century was written in blood like any other, an emphasis on "society building" shouldn't preclude combat.

um, this very DD is about combat.

 

[lordvagrant]

The concept of a 'battle timer' just opens the way for so much potential unexpected gaminess down the road. At the very least can you hide this mechanic from the player. Cover it up with some fluff or something? I'd supported the new war concepts until now but if it's just going to be the equivalent of a mechanical hourglass that turns back and forth semi-regularly then you clearly are just making similar mistakes to Imperator and all the other overly gamified mechanics released over the years.

I'd even prefer the HOI4 Air-Combat/naval combat blackbox concept where battles occur unpredictably as opposed to a definite countdown as shown above.

That's exactly how battles often occurred.

Find out where the enemy is/disposition of forces. i.e. scouting.
Manouver forces into position to attack.
Accumulate desired levels of munitions for barrages.

While all of these may not be required for every battle, they are things that do take predictable time.
Just ask that the "Advancement Progress" be renamed to "Offensive Preparation".

 

[hazard151]

If there are multiple generals in the same front, can you always use the same general for every battle? Is there some game incentive to alternate generals in the same front between battles? The number of units that a general can borrow from others generals in the same front is limited?

Selection appears to be automatic and randomized. Multiple generals at the same front lets you concentrate forces. This is not so important when you are a small country with only 1 State to defend, but if you have a large territory you might not want to have the troops in garrison in a completely safe State doing nothing, so you might as well mobilize them with a general and throw them into battle.

The historically accurate approach to this would be to have devastation give large speed, and smaller combat, maluses to units fighting in or moving through a devastated area, and have late-game devastation be extremely severe. One problem with WWI simulation is that heavily favoring defense in the mechanics incentivizes just sitting there staring at each other. Historically, the attackers on the Western Front had an initial advantage, because they could choose where to concentrate reserves and overwhelming artillery firepower (to the point that despite machine guns and barbed wire, casualty ratios tended to actually favor the attacker in early stages); but attacks culminated quickly, because the enemy could quickly bring up reinforcements and supplies through intact railways, while the attacker's rear has become the destroyed former no-man's-land. Giving attack an advantage until devastation gets high would result in the bloody back-and-forth consistent with history, because if you just sat back and defended the enemy could inch forward bit by bit with favorable casualty ratios in each encounter.

This is a good point. The reason people kept trying to attack instead of just digging in was because breaking through the enemy line was possible, at least in theory. This is in fact the reason the British developed Bite and Hold tactics, where they tried to attack a section of the German trenches for the specific purpose of forcing the Germans to expose themselves in a counter attack to take those trenches back, or give up and have to restructure their defenses.

Question what's the benefit of having many generals of varying quality rather then 1 really really good general can more generals start more battles if the front is large enough?

There are two big differences. The first is that generals have a maximum capacity of mobilized troops they can have under them, which is implied to also be related to how many they can command in battle. The second is that generals let you pull troops from States that are not part of the front line and put those troops where they are needed.



Now, what I'm curious about is the impact of technological development and the healthcare law and system of your nation on casualties. Does it decrease the number of dead soldiers, but increase the number of dependents? Does it decrease both? Or does it have no impact at all?
I mean, that is possible. Battlefield medicine is difficult enough in the modern day, and many militaries have invested heavily in equipment and training to make sure as many soldiers survive and recover from their injuries. But back then, well, you didn't have the option to haul the wounded far beyond the reach of artillery in a couple of hours for them to be attended by the best trauma care specialists in the country. Most had to make do with the army surgeons, who often worked in unsanitary conditions and under great time pressures.

 

[thedarkendstar]

"If you haven't already, I suggest you first read through the dev diary on Fronts and get acquainted with the concepts explained there."

As the dev diary says, it's explained there.

I see some general statements but nothing concrete enough to answer my question

 

[thedarkendstar]

Selection appears to be automatic and randomized. Multiple generals at the same front lets you concentrate forces. This is not so important when you are a small country with only 1 State to defend, but if you have a large territory you might not want to have the troops in garrison in a completely safe State doing nothing, so you might as well mobilize them with a general and throw them into battle.



This is a good point. The reason people kept trying to attack instead of just digging in was because breaking through the enemy line was possible, at least in theory. This is in fact the reason the British developed Bite and Hold tactics, where they tried to attack a section of the German trenches for the specific purpose of forcing the Germans to expose themselves in a counter attack to take those trenches back, or give up and have to restructure their defenses.



There are two big differences. The first is that generals have a maximum capacity of mobilized troops they can have under them, which is implied to also be related to how many they can command in battle. The second is that generals let you pull troops from States that are not part of the front line and put those troops where they are needed.



Now, what I'm curious about is the impact of technological development and the healthcare law and system of your nation on casualties. Does it decrease the number of dead soldiers, but increase the number of dependents? Does it decrease both? Or does it have no impact at all?
I mean, that is possible. Battlefield medicine is difficult enough in the modern day, and many militaries have invested heavily in equipment and training to make sure as many soldiers survive and recover from their injuries. But back then, well, you didn't have the option to haul the wounded far beyond the reach of artillery in a couple of hours for them to be attended by the best trauma care specialists in the country. Most had to make do with the army surgeons, who often worked in unsanitary conditions and under great time pressures.

But there are 5 ranks of a general what is the benefits to having 1 5 star general over 5 1 star generals and vise versa

 

[TheWorstPro]

But there are 5 ranks of a general what is the benefits to having 1 5 star general over 5 1 star generals and vise versa

The benefit, really, is just granularity. If I have 5 1 star generals commanding 10 troops each, I can mobilize only a few at a time for small engagements (saving money) or split them 30-20 or 10-40 to different fronts depending on what I need. There’s also likely the added possibility that concentrating all those troops into 1 general might benefit that interest group or character much more.

edit: and a benefit of only having 1 5 star general might be how easily they can concentrate troops as well as being somewhat cheaper (since employing multiple generals might be more expensive than 1 higher rank guy)

 

[Hammrtime]

Battles look relatively straight forward. I like that the bigger the defeat, the bigger the amount of land captured.

We will have to see how important wars actually are the game. Since this game is not a map painter I don't think we are going to miss the "in-depth" battle mechanics (I don't think microing units around is in-depth).

I do think that a player should be spending a reasonable amount of time thinking about their geopolitical situation of their country. If there is any war themed DLC, there almost certainly will be given this is a new mechanic, I hope the direction is allowing the player to dive deeper into preparation and executing the war on a much higher scale. More decisions to be made about material support, Homefront economics, politics and diplomacy. I think that is were this game could truly revolutionize how we see PDX games are played during war. In my opinion battles should continue to play second fiddle to the rest of the game mechanics.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I hope the direction is allowing the player to dive deeper into preparation and executing the war on a much higher scale.

i've suggested this once before. i wonder whether most people would be satisfied if the player could give a general a two-step plan i.e. 'first do A, then do B'

 

[Cereal_Comma]

This looks like a deeply unfun mechanic.

 

[UnenthusiasticClownJob]

This war system as explained thus far sounds like it's still micro-intensive while simultaneously removing possibilities for the player to influence events. If we constantly have to reorganize what fronts our generals are on, and pick the generals to lead each battle, then we still have to focus on jiggering around our battleplans while simultaneously not being able to make real battle plans.

I have to keep bringing this up: one of the biggest problems with Hoi4's micromanagement is that, when fronts break up by encircling enemies, pushing them against other countries' borders, thinning out too much etc., you constantly have to redraw the fronts over and over every couple ingame days. That looks like it will still happen here, but we'll also have to choose which general is in charge of which battle, every battle. Unless, of course, you don't pick your generals and they're automatically selected, which would be so laughably bad that I couldn't express.

We got rid of player agency and that needs to be made worth it, and the devs have been worryingly silent or downright confirming the fears on pretty much every complaint I've had. I began very positively on this new war system, and my view has been getting more and more negative every dev diary and AAR. Even now, I think it'd be better than Victoria 2's, but goodness is it on the wrong track.

 

[Tamwin5]

But there are 5 ranks of a general what is the benefits to having 1 5 star general over 5 1 star generals and vise versa

There are also political concerns. If you have a really good general, but he is from an interest group you are trying to marginalize, then it's probably not worth promoting him. Similarly, a mediocre general might be raised solely because he supports a governing party. I'm not clear on exactly how that math will work out, but it's something they mentioned.

 

[Jochen_Mongolia]

No 3D units on the map? No beautiful unit sprite pack with national uniforms?

 

[thedarkendstar]

The benefit, really, is just granularity. If I have 5 1 star generals commanding 10 troops each, I can mobilize only a few at a time for small engagements (saving money) or split them 30-20 or 10-40 to different fronts depending on what I need. There’s also likely the added possibility that concentrating all those troops into 1 general might benefit that interest group or character much more.

edit: and a benefit of only having 1 5 star general might be how easily they can concentrate troops as well as being somewhat cheaper (since employing multiple generals might be more expensive than 1 higher rank guy)

I wish I could use multiple Generals to fire more battles if the front is long enough. You can Fight in Virginia and at Vicksburg at the same time for instance you need not wait for the other to finish.

The Union strategy at the end of the war was just this use the superior manpower and men of the union to pin down the Confederates in Virginia so the couldn't send men to reinforce the other fronts while those confederate armies collapse without support.

 

[Jay9462]

Might be more of a modern thing but will there be some way to support wounded that become dependents? Like some sort of discharge pay or veterans support service or something so they don’t cripple the income of their families trying to support them. They fought for the country so I would like to see an option to give them some benefits in return, especially in a country with a more militaristic mindset

 

[goodcigar]

Sorry to say but yeah this is bad imo. This is entering mobile game territory imo.

 

[Sirbab]

Re: casualty splits and advanced weaponry
Am i reading it right that a small advanced army leading a large amount of technologically inferior troops would suffer no downside?