Artillery is Weird and I Don't Like It >:(

[Rabid]

This is of course the core of the problem. The change introduced many problems, and literally zero benefits, and everyone knows that.

I am absolutely convinced that this was introduced as a misread of the complaint that "armies don't feel like they really exist on the map" in 1.0 and someone came up with the bright idea of letting you fiddle with individual units to make armies feel more present and individual.

Of course nobody really wanted this, and it is probably the only change made to the game so far which actively hurts gameplay, but since dev time was spent on adding it I can see why they're reluctant to just scrap it.

 

[Prob32]

Side-take but it’s also important that ground regiments are raised and associated with their states since regiments at the time were strongly associated with said states. Look at the 20th Maine or the numerous WWI regiment memorials in British towns as an example.

Love Joshua Chamberlain!

I see your point- it’s a trade off, I do think barracks probably need to be assigned per state but you could have it similar to HoI where if your population constrained you can only have a few battalions in your corps- which should make them less efficient for organization and supply. Also you could raise corps from strategic regions and have barracks auto place instead of building them. Especially if consumption goes to the state they’re in with a logistics update

 

[guiskj]

Discrete unit types were a knee-jerk reaction to warfare in Vic3 being a dumpster fire post release.

The current system is completely untied to the social-economic gameplay loop.

Goods are not that important as they are easily produced, likely a compromise to help the AI.

It matters 0% where my barracks are and even less where I place my conscription centers.

Commanders, the people that I should fear the most about leading coups, mean almost nothing to my political decisions.

But I am supposed to care that I need to keep a 50%+ Infantry to my armies. Sure, that's why I play Vic3...

I want Countries to have specific warfare doctrines, and that I must use leaders/economics/laws to change the makeup of my military.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Personally I'd prefer some level of "Designer" type mechanic from HoI vs EU4 where you can adjust ratio of artillery balanced entire unit formations goto battle instead of just Battalions. I think it's probably more accurate to think of formations entering battles than individual units for a game of this scale and time period.

I'm not sure why HoI4 designer type mechanics get a bad rep as easy to cheese either - sure there are meta templates, but the idea is there's compelling trade offs between supply and manpower abundant countries and countries that have more representative governance by higher technology.

Example:

Russia should absolutely be able to manpower blob under Peasant levies and Absolute Monarchy - fighting on its home territory it should get benefits from supply. It's war support should be relative insular to casualties and more based around whether the Landowners are losing power.

Conversely, Great Britain fighting Russia in crimea should have more expensive unit compositions that are better, require much more supply to keep in the fight and casualties including attrition should most definitely hurt war support.

This would work, or treat armies as bricks of men with the levels tweaked by PMs. I don't care how they choose to do it visually, just get rid of specific barracks being tied to specific unit types so I don't have to hunt down the one horse from this state or delete my army to restructure it.

Also you could raise corps from strategic regions and have barracks auto place instead of building them.

Raising troops at the strategic region level with barracks auto-assigned as a means of moving manpower from one level to the next would be wonderful. I agree that people took a lot of pride in being the 20th Maine, but that's not something the game even pretends to model so I would prefer the playability of pooling manpower in fewer areas for the player to directly interact with. Eastern Russia has a ton of population spread over so many states I almost never bother building barracks out there, but I could probably get at least one decent army (without worrying about micro) if I could pool them together.

 

[strattonthebard]

I am absolutely convinced that this was introduced as a misread of the complaint that "armies don't feel like they really exist on the map" in 1.0 and someone came up with the bright idea of letting you fiddle with individual units to make armies feel more present and individual.

Of course nobody really wanted this, and it is probably the only change made to the game so far which actively hurts gameplay, but since dev time was spent on adding it I can see why they're reluctant to just scrap it.

If they were just going to roll it back to previous systems yeah I doubt it but i think it's quite likely they'll end up replacing it with some other new system

 

[Prob32]

This would work, or treat armies as bricks of men with the levels tweaked by PMs.

The thing with PM's is that the act of switching itself is way to fast - I don't like the PM toggle as it exists on building either because it flattens the immense choice countries had to partake in whether they wanted to recapitalize existing industries or build new ones with their scarce construction (capital) resources.

I don't care how they choose to do it visually, just get rid of specific barracks being tied to specific unit types so I don't have to hunt down the one horse from this state or delete my army to restructure it.

This is a good point - which is that there's probably some type of intermediate level that could be modeled where manpower is "pooled" maybe its a capacity type mechanic and "corps" or units pull from that pool. It's weird hard coding artillery battalions, infantry battalions and calvary battalions to specific barracks. In HoI it's far easier within the UI to raise units and to transfer/combine them between groups. This is getting better, but V3 should be lighter than HoI in touch here imo.

Presumably with any type of re-work military goods will be demanded across states bordering the frontlines or in states where armies reside. In this case barrack location only matters for army clout and civil wars.

Raising troops at the strategic region level with barracks auto-assigned as a means of moving manpower from one level to the next would be wonderful. I agree that people took a lot of pride in being the 20th Maine, but that's not something the game even pretends to model so I would prefer the playability of pooling manpower in fewer areas for the player to directly interact with. Eastern Russia has a ton of population spread over so many states I almost never bother building barracks out there, but I could probably get at least one decent army (without worrying about micro) if I could pool them together.

The 20th could still be from Maine - you just order 8 "corps" to be created from the New England HQ region. Then barracks gets assigned as the formations rise, sort of like how FD's just appear.

 

[FightingFirst]

Agreed the mil system needs a complete root and branch rework.

I would like a system that is more akin to HoI4 in terms of designing your army so we have a lot more granularity. Artillery could then be like support companies. Even in the victorian period, there would still be a fair bit to choose from like engineers, logistics, MPs, commissariat etc.

On top of that, I would really like the devs to figure out a way so wars in the far flung reaches of the world dont bring the entire army of European nations to them. It should be much harder to move and then supply an army to prevent this type of behaviour imo.

Lastly, hopefully the naval update makes the naval aspect a bit better. The British Empire doesn't feel like the British Empire due to having a massive army. Hopefully, the devs can get it to be a bit more accurate.

 

[tanktop tiger]

This has already not been well integrated for some time with the original game mechanics that still exist. What can be most jarring is a major revolution. Goodbye to all your well-organized formations. It should already be punishment enough to depend on the territory that is rebelling—whether it was a slaveholding region with black slaves harvesting cotton, or the core of heavy industry.

These nuances, which are decisive in a civil war in the game, simply vanish, creating absolute chaos for all formations, along with the huge handicap of not having enough infantry to support artillery or cavalry. The latter two end up being a burden for whoever has more of them—just absurd.

 

[Athius]

I wish units (as a generic "brigade, division or even corps) would not have to be manually created. Instead you set a conscription level which determines the size of your army over time.

Doctrines would determine the unit composition. Mobilization levels would be rationalized (I want to set equipement or logistic levels,not -per army- if they get chocolate or not).

Orders should also be implemented on front level. Getting on army to attack by setting each general to attack is horrible UX.

I'd also remove the special atta k orders that are tied to generals their personalities. It's tedious illogical and unfun. That should be a doctrinal decision.

Laat but not least: only show combat dioramas at places were actual battles are taking place. Saves performance and looks less silly in,for example, the US having huge manned 1917 style frontlines whilst fighting Mexico in sparsly populated regions with small armies.

 

[tanktop tiger]

Lastly, hopefully the naval update makes the naval aspect a bit better. The British Empire doesn't feel like the British Empire due to having a massive army. Hopefully, the devs can get it to be a bit more accurate.

Tremendous nerf they’ve applied to the navy. A single misstep—whether it’s an admiral dying of old age or just one defeat in a naval skirmish—can make the entire fleet withdraw, even with all ships still operational.

Starting the invasion already establishes a beachhead so you can send whatever you want to the front; it doesn’t matter if you later regain full naval superiority, the invasion keeps going because you didn’t stop it 100% from the very beginning.

Literally, the fleet has gone from being an impenetrable wall to worthless trash where, if you don’t have the largest army backing it up, you’re screwed.

 

[Prob32]

On top of that, I would really like the devs to figure out a way so wars in the far flung reaches of the world dont bring the entire army of European nations to them. It should be much harder to move and then supply an army to prevent this type of behaviour imo.

I feel like the solution here is both really easy and really hard. On the surface the easy part is to have units assigned to HQ's distribute their goods needs across every state in the HQ they occupy or maybe a weighted average. For troops on the frontline you'd do the same, except heavily weight their goods needs into the states where battles are taking place. The local market is a perfect place to apply these goods needs.

Everything else about it is hard. States need to swap markets when occupied, armies probably need some local supply they live off while marching and slowly declines if the frontline avg can't support their needs.

Also the entire system needs to be the same for the market as well so a war makes all your non war industries less profitable as they need more transport.

 

[cdub8d]

Personally I'd prefer some level of "Designer" type mechanic from HoI vs EU4 where you can adjust ratio of artillery balanced entire unit formations goto battle instead of just Battalions. I think it's probably more accurate to think of formations entering battles than individual units for a game of this scale and time period.

I'm not sure why HoI4 designer type mechanics get a bad rep as easy to cheese either - sure there are meta templates, but the idea is there's compelling trade offs between supply and manpower abundant countries and countries that have more representative governance by higher technology.

Example:

Russia should absolutely be able to manpower blob under Peasant levies and Absolute Monarchy - fighting on its home territory it should get benefits from supply. It's war support should be relative insular to casualties and more based around whether the Landowners are losing power.

Conversely, Great Britain fighting Russia in crimea should have more expensive unit compositions that are better, require much more supply to keep in the fight and casualties including attrition should most definitely hurt war support.

It could be as simple as setting the ratio of inf vs artillery. I don't think vicky needs that much more detail in terms of composition. The distinction between inf and arty does matter because of the heavy industrial cost of creating and supply arty.

I think in general when someone suggests taking ideas from Hoi4, people think of everything Hoi4 has and freaks out that it would be copied 1 for 1.