More graphical representation of battles

[Trexeth]

Real-time 2D battlefield (rework of battle interface)

Hello, i am the one who created time for 3d battles thread. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?744574-Time-for-3d-Battles!

I read all the replies and got up with new idea, which i hope you will like more.

Here is current battle interface:

In my opinion, when you are playing grand strategy games, where battles play major part in the gameplay, this small sized battle interface is not enough to transfer the tension of battles.

What is on current interface?
Numbers, icons, tons of text...
In my opinion, this is not as interesting as it could be.

I believe that battles should gain more attention than they have now.

My proposition is creating Real time 2D battlefield, looking at which you can track the progress of the battle, see maneuvers and just enjoy watching it.


When i have an army, i want to see it, when i have a battle, i want to feel it.
I want to feel the tension of battle, track it's progress, see formation, see maneuvering...

My proposition:

The battle evolves from this state:

To this: (so we can see real time troops movement on a 2D battlefield (with terrain).

As well it can be completed like this:

Or this way: (Sorry for many pictures)

Thank you for your attention, hope you share my desires.

P.S. Sooner or later, Paradox will need to make real-time battlefield (2D or 3D) for their grand strategy games, it's a question of time, and i believe that the time has come.

 

[Polarisan]

"tons" of text? You only have the names of the regiments and numerical values next to that text. What's really important is the numbers there.

I personally believe that if PDS has the time to program pops in Victoria, they have the time to create a "map" for every province in game. That'd be the map for the battle. For example, you make a 2D map of the province and then the army's positions depend on the general, but it would largely stay the same, the map will.

It would still use the same system of X regiment engages Y however it'd allow for much more... depth of gameplay and a representation of "combat width" but I'm not sure if it'd be implemented, I also don't know how hard on the Clausewitz that'd be.

 

[Mauer]

Personally, I think it would be a huge waste of processor power and game time. This is strategy where the bigger picture is what matters, what do I care this or that army does this or that maneuver in this or that battle, out of dozens of battles per war.

What when you're fighting three wars at the same time in different parts of the world, moving armies around and outmaneuvering your enemies on the world map can already be overwhelming with the current abstracted battle system. And I'm talking about EU here, can't even imagine what it'd be like in HoI.

I do see the appeal if all you play is a dovish minor power though.

 

[Variton]

I agree with the sentence that PDS games need more interesting battles, as wars tend to be less fun than other parts of their games. This is highlighted by CK2 where battles are really overshadowed by other aspects of the game (the more graphical presentation of the dynasty breeding). The original idea of Trexeth of setting the formations and maneuvers and then mainly watching (or not) the outcome was good IMO, as it would fit a PDS RTS game very well. Why could you not pause the game for battle preparation?

Also one problem with PDS style games which lack unit graphics is that it's hard to fit it in a fantasy world. For Example: Having a dragon in your army would be dulled by the fact that it's just a "1 green dragon" in the troop number screens and a modifier of +20% in the battle resolution. For HoI3 this problem was partly fixed by mods: At least you could have a "stug III" and see a good picture of it to reward the completion of tech research & upgrades (thanks francesco).

On the other hand, I don't feel that merely watching 2D or 3D models battling it out would make battles much better. ( as a sidenote: I turn off the needless battle animations in panzer general too )

So I'm hoping that somebody in PDS teams comes up with an extraordinarily good idea to improve this as I don't have anything better to offer

 

[Trexeth]

look at the picture i added to the post, this kind of 2d Battlefield takes only few PC resources, it wouldn't be hard to implement it.
I believe that having this 2D real-time battlefield would be awsome.
Here is the pic:

 

[TingJonKi]

Personally, I think it would be a huge waste of processor power and game time. This is strategy where the bigger picture is what matters, what do I care this or that army does this or that maneuver in this or that battle, out of dozens of battles per war.

What when you're fighting three wars at the same time in different parts of the world, moving armies around and outmaneuvering your enemies on the world map can already be overwhelming with the current abstracted battle system. And I'm talking about EU here, can't even imagine what it'd be like in HoI.

I do see the appeal if all you play is a dovish minor power though.

You could easily just add a checkbox for [mark this battle for my interests] and then youd have the option to watch the battle anytime the battle was being fought

Otherwise the battles would be done like it is now where its automated until you click the checkbox, that way itd be efficient



My biggest problem with this is that itd be a novelty unless it allows players to invervine, case in point Endless Space
That game you dont have a single stake in the battle and you just watch the battle after you chose your cards, the 'fun' of watching those battles wears off fast for many people even with its amazing graphics. On the other hand Sins of a Solar empire battles are tense and fun because you can choose what to do in the battle because you dont have an observer effect.



Honestly the best thing to do if we were to implement a battle system in EU4/CK2 would be to use a Day Turn based (each tick is a day in campaign map) tactical battlefield you can zoom out of at anytime. The actual fighting would be from 2D sprites that resemble a regiment on a map that you choose what regimnt does for each day and then end turn; Best example for this of Day based fighting with movement points and whatnot is Romance of the Three Kingdoms 10 whose simple battles BUT ENGAGING could be rendered easily on a PS2. The checkbox feature to optimize the battles would still be there so you wouldnt be seeing needless battles or tying up needless CPU unless you want to, You could zoom in and out of the battles at any point too.

 

[Chromos]

Look at the DD from MotE:

Spoiler

Hi everyone and welcome to the 9th developer diary for March of the Eagles. Today we'll be talking about land combat.

Your armies are divided into four parts. You have a center, two flanks and the reserves, and each can have a separate leader appointed and the leader of the reserves will also give a slight bonus to all the troops in the center and flanks.

The leaders of each flank decide on a tactic to use during the battle. The player can choose to a preferred tactic for each flank, but if not, the leader will use his best judgment as to which tactic to employ. There are numerous tactics to choose from for each part of the army, among them feints, holds and counterpunches.

The combat events that occur during the battle are often reliant on the tactics in play whenever the armies meet.

When you army enters battle, your center and flanks fight the enemy's center and flanks. Combat starts out in a bombard phase, where artillery is king – this is where the cannon you bring to the field will have their greatest impact. But with the right tactics in place, leaders of the opposing sections of the battlefield will try to maneuver themselves either to prolong the bombard phase or, if they are at a disadvantage, shorten it, depending on their own troops ability to strike at the enemy and the the enemy's ability to strike at their own troops. The leader with the best maneuver skill will have the advantage in all encounters between sections on the field.

When the bombard phase is over, the armies clash in close combat. Brigades attack other brigades, but cannot target artillery troops if screening troops are present.

If a flank breaks, it will retreat and the opposing section will start to pursue. Note that,because of their speed, cavalry is especially good at hunting down fleeing troops.

The efficiency of the troops in a section is greatly influenced by the number of troops present and the “frontage” provided by the terrain. Think of frontage as the number of guns you can bring to bear (and men you can expose to danger) because of the width of the battlefield. In open terrain, frontage will be generous and huge armies can fight, but when combat starts in mountain passes or if you are assaulting a fort, frontage will be much lower. If you are on the attack and have superior numbers, you will want maximum frontage so you can use these advantages.

If the available troops ideally need more frontage than the terrain provides, then they will deal less damage than the balance of forces might otherwise suggest. But the commander of the reserves can pull troops from the flanks in order to make sure frontage is balanced. He can also choose to reinforce a flank in order to secure it from breaking or forcefully commit the guard to overpower the enemy in one flank.

In each combat phase, brigades have to wait until enough combat rounds have passed until they're able to strike. This is the initiative of the brigade. Light infantry and cavalry have good initiative ratings, for example, and can harass the enemy forces before they are able to strike back.

Cheers,
Johan

Ps. And don´t forget to watch March of The Eagles video walkthrough by King at Gamespot!
http://www.gamespot.com/march-of-th...-of-the-eagles-developer-walkthrough-6399828/

View attachment 67532

Or look at my older suggestions here:

Spoiler

Hi!
have a look:
napoleons-campaigns-ii-early screens

I posted over here a question in the general discussions part of the forum:
Napoleon's-Campaigns-II


As some already asked for a city battle map lately:
The-city-battle-map=city+battle

Wouldn't it be really nice if AI could use it and the player could also take action there more indeep.
Not only in cities but in provinces in general as we see now in CKII and the new Napoleon game.

See CKII below:

So combat events could be made more visible to the players and we would see a nice breakthrough.
Depending on the new(!) unit stances for unit types(researchable new stances, so tanks would be used as pure inf support initially and later get dfferent stances that represent the usage of newer tactics..) and the stances for the 4 areas left flank/center/right flank/reserve, would make the tactical part of the strategic game more interesting, no?
(4 areas left flank/center/right flank/reserve, wich each 3 stances, or the same we have now for the HQ's..)

At least it could be implemented in a cool way that new tactics and equipment is superior to "mass low stuff"..

What do others think?
And please no comment like that the current engine can't handle it for the many battles of HOI3 and this is a useless post etc..
It's about future(!) possibilities and if it would be FUN to have them ingame..

Cheers,
Chromos

That thread also shows how hard it is to explain that no more micro or 3D like in TW games is wanted, but more fun watching battles.
MotE/CK2 showed that it can be already more attracting to watch a battle. And MotE has even a battle log again(similar like HoI2/Aod/DH have).
HoI3s new tactical system or MotE terrain feature and taking the flanks into consideration much more makes up for a more detailed battle feeling.
Even in modern wars you have a flank in a battle to take care of. Just imagine:
A:
Center is using tanks, flanks with inf to attack.
Center is set to breakthrough/flanks to moderate attack stance.(Can be set like by the current tactics system of HoI3)
B: Center is set to hold, has hvy AT attached. Left flank has Inf and on hold, but right flank has Hvy Armour and is set on counterattack!

So B might be attacked, the Center of A bogged down by the Hvy AT of B, but the Left INF flank of A will hit the Hvy Tanks of B.
The heavies will for sure win against the INF and could flank(or if having fast tanks in support, try to encircle) the tanks of A's Center!
If A doesn't have reserves it could turn out bad easily etc...
Positioning and usage of terrain could be easily implemented aswell much more as before. AI would react with bonus for experience.
All could happen on full auto, or with a human override.

Limitations is however cpu cycles at hand. As with MotE you have much more cycles free for combat as in HoI3/EUIV or CK2 alone for the different other complex systems implemented.
But GUI wise it could be represented different and more appealing hopefully.

 

[Trexeth]

I am glad that most of you like this idea.
I personally see this 2D real-time battlefield crucial in next Paradox games.
For me, this would be huge step for improving the battle part of the whole gameplay.
Moreover, this would allow more in-depth tactics, and more influence from quality of units, not the quantity.

 

[Augustus93]

This may work for up until Victoria games period after that it wouldn't work because battle tactics became very complex. However there is the problem that besides watching how the battle unfolds you wouldn't really do much else with this "feature". I just don't see why this would be such a revolutionary feature at all...

 

[Chromos]

This may work for up until Victoria games period after that it wouldn't work because battle tactics became very complex. However there is the problem that besides watching how the battle unfolds you wouldn't really do much else with this "feature". I just don't see why this would be such a revolutionary feature at all...

It is "eye candy"..
Imagine the system in HoI3 Tactics(breakthough/elastic defense) could be visualized a bit more "attractive".

 

[Variton]

It is "eye candy"..
Imagine the system in HoI3 Tactics(breakthough/elastic defense) could be visualized a bit more "attractive".

I am sure that PDS games need more interesting battles. This could be achieved by:
1. Eye candy
2. More possibilities for player and AI to affect the outcome of battles beforehand. (CK2 was a nice try, but it's still more of a "numbers matter", than anything else)
3. More informative battle screen (CK2 was a nice start but it takes a bit of background digging and understanding of game mechanics to see how the battles are influenced by different tactics and modifiers and leader skills)
2+3= rethought and more complex battle mechanics

What I'm not sure is that 2D battlefields (or just eye candy) are the solution. I can image either it would take a lot of programming or the number of complaints coming in when the troops would maneuver illogically.

 

[Augustus93]

It is "eye candy"..
Imagine the system in HoI3 Tactics(breakthough/elastic defense) could be visualized a bit more "attractive".

It is a matter of taste what is more attractive. The question would be better, would you sacrifice important game speed for eye candy? I wouldn't. Another issue is of course that it may not be worth it for Paradox to invest manpower, capital and time to make this eye candy.

 

[jakt]

they shouldn't do this, but they should do something like CKII. as noted in one of the replies above, it makes battles more interesting. however, CKII uses people with traits that really help in the battle, e.g., leading the center +20% dmg center, -10% dmg flank. since we only have like 5 generals at a time or something, you won't be doing the same thing in EUIV.

this is Grand Strategy not tactics. if you want tactics, go play total war or starcraft. nothing wrong with tactics, but grand strategy is highly abstracted and should remain that way. graphically displaying the batlte is a waste of resources. a waste of development time and a waste of gpu power. if things are tense, it's when im maneuvering multiple armies around. who cares about one battle? i only look at the battle screen if it is going badly to know when i can strategically re-position my army. now it could be more interesting, showing tactics used (like in CKII) so i'd watch it, but ive had battles go on for close on a year in EUIV (which is wrong, wrong, wrong) and there's a lot more things to pay attention to that pretty pictures

 

[Chromos]

they shouldn't do this, but they should do something like CKII. as noted in one of the replies above, it makes battles more interesting. however, CKII uses people with traits that really help in the battle, e.g., leading the center +20% dmg center, -10% dmg flank. since we only have like 5 generals at a time or something, you won't be doing the same thing in EUIV.

this is Grand Strategy not tactics. if you want tactics, go play total war or starcraft. nothing wrong with tactics, but grand strategy is highly abstracted and should remain that way. graphically displaying the batlte is a waste of resources. a waste of development time and a waste of gpu power. if things are tense, it's when im maneuvering multiple armies around. who cares about one battle? i only look at the battle screen if it is going badly to know when i can strategically re-position my army. now it could be more interesting, showing tactics used (like in CKII) so i'd watch it, but ive had battles go on for close on a year in EUIV (which is wrong, wrong, wrong) and there's a lot more things to pay attention to that pretty pictures

See, thats all I also wrote about all the time. Some seem to think I would TW like stuff, but in fact all I want is just a bit more eye candy like in CKII or MotE..
Simply put, visualize the battles a bit different, thats not needing much more cpu as we can see in CKII etc..

 

[fabius]

I am sure that PDS games need more interesting battles. This could be achieved by:
1. Eye candy
2. More possibilities for player and AI to affect the outcome of battles beforehand. (CK2 was a nice try, but it's still more of a "numbers matter", than anything else)
3. More informative battle screen (CK2 was a nice start but it takes a bit of background digging and understanding of game mechanics to see how the battles are influenced by different tactics and modifiers and leader skills)
2+3= rethought and more complex battle mechanics

Agree totally with this.

I've always thought that I'd like to see what is going on more. Could be text based, but I prefer some graphics, not necessarily high end stuff. Heck I even like the combat events in HoI3.

Trick would be pulling it off without necessarily slowing the grand strategy for every little battle.

 

[unmerged(457669)]

Trexeth..have had similar ideas myself on wargames using a visual style that you've shown..especially ACW and before it would work very well, and even fantasy wargames.

I'd love to see it in CK2 for instance. Maybe let the player give the initial battleplan orders at the start..then you run the battle but have no further input..just a nail biting watch.

 

[Kanaric]

no thx.