Battle System

[lowdias]

Please, all i want is a proper battle system.Playing a bit of CK2, i find that the skirmish/ decisive/ etc, system is a great improvment over the fire/shock system but it is still far from perfect ( or just realistic) and that is the number one deterrent that made me not buying CK2.In that aspect a largely prefer the Total war series.For exemple why do an army largely composed of light units would ever want to enter into decisive phase against much more armored units, instead of just harassing them to death.I would really like to see smaller forces able to take on much larger forces, especially in mountainous terrain.And I dont see why i must engage an ennemy army the day i enter a province they're in.And what if they ambush me, or attack me first, moving to them doesn't mean i am always the attacker. Well, a proper and realistic battle system would be welcome and in ck2 it is just too easy ( aka numbers > all)

 

[luitzen]

No, definitely not make it like Total War. If you like the tactics of battles, than you should definitely go play TW, but if you're not that much interested in it and rather play a grand campaign, then TW is a really awful game. It is seriously lacking in almost any aspect on the strategic level. If I play a strategy game I want larger armies with better and appropriate units and better generals to win most of the battles. I do not want to make my achievements on the strategical level to be irrelevant because I'm such a great/awful army leader, nor do I want to play a grand campaign, spanning several centuries, to be interrupted for maybe 20 minutes for each siege/battle while I already have serious troubles finding courage to play the game till 1821. I'd rather have more focus on whatever made an empire an empire and a nation a nation (such as trade or demographics) and assume that over a long period of time every nation would roughly find the same amount of fortune and catastrophe on the battleground instead of the human player being the only one excelling on this level.

What TW has going for it, I won't deny it, is the positional, rather than the provincial approach to the map. Considering the enormous demand on human resources and computer power required for the level of detail they are trying to bring us on a global scale, I do not expect Paradox to change that, however.

 

[takedown47]

you can make battles like total war but without the 3d battles. all you do is give players choice before the battle about what tactics to use, ie. flank left, flank right, frontal assault, encirclement. battles could take place in 1 day instead of rage for days and weeks like they normally do. tactics could also be selected prior to commencing each phase. so:

phase 1, strategic deployment
- selectable tactics could be a focus on ensuring army is well supplied with ammunition/or use the time to find good terrain advantage etc.
phase 2, skirmish
- maybe give people choices like scout enemy positions, engage enemy light troops or use cavalry to control more good terrain (ie. think waterloo)
phase 3, battle
- give options like flank left, flank right, frontal assault (like a hail mary), cavalry screen left with right flank attack, maybe even allow players to determine the intensity of each attack, etc. stuff like this could really make a difference to the usual ping pong bs that plagues all paradox games. that just gets really boring after awhile. especially against rebels.

 

[Zakath]

you can make battles like total war but without the 3d battles. all you do is give players choice before the battle about what tactics to use, ie. flank left, flank right, frontal assault, encirclement. battles could take place in 1 day instead of rage for days and weeks like they normally do. tactics could also be selected prior to commencing each phase. so:

phase 1, strategic deployment
- selectable tactics could be a focus on ensuring army is well supplied with ammunition/or use the time to find good terrain advantage etc.
phase 2, skirmish
- maybe give people choices like scout enemy positions, engage enemy light troops or use cavalry to control more good terrain (ie. think waterloo)
phase 3, battle
- give options like flank left, flank right, frontal assault (like a hail mary), cavalry screen left with right flank attack, maybe even allow players to determine the intensity of each attack, etc. stuff like this could really make a difference to the usual ping pong bs that plagues all paradox games. that just gets really boring after awhile. especially against rebels.

Battles aren't really one battle, they're a series of battles and skirmishes taking place in a province.

I'd like to see them a bit more complex, but I'm quite comfortable with the level of abstraction found in CKII. After all you as the ruler of a nation don't really have direct control over your armies, with the exception of the ruler being a unit leader, so you have to live with the commanders you have. Some might prefer shock tactics, even with an infantry army, and some refuse to commit.

I wouldn't mind seeing battles a bit more flexible with armies being able to avoid battle for a few days, possibly being able to give armies order to attempt to avoid battle, but it's not a big deal for me. The CKII system is a pretty fair compromise between LOD and abstraction IMO.

 

[takedown47]

yes but my problem is 1 day of battle can completely change history. ie. trafalgar or waterloo are prime examples. all i ask is eu4 get the same love as march of the eagles is going to recieve

 

[vyshan]

IMO the big problem with the previous battle system is that it focuses on sieges. IE, if I want to conquere a province I have to siege it. Which is what most of the battles seem to be about. It also does not repersent IMO conquest and battles well, especially once guns start to become a main-stay.

I personally think that the system that victoria uses works much better. ie instead of sieges, you conquere a province but it takes some time. You don't do the act of sieging. Castles and other defenses can slow this timer down but also as time goes on and guns become more important it removes the advantage that the castle and other defenses had.

 

[knul]

IMO the big problem with the previous battle system is that it focuses on sieges. IE, if I want to conquere a province I have to siege it. Which is what most of the battles seem to be about. It also does not repersent IMO conquest and battles well, especially once guns start to become a main-stay.

But for most of the period, sieges were the most important aspect of warfare. It wasn't until the Napoleonic Wars that sieges became less important and battles determined the outcome of war (f.e. Trafalgar, Austerlitz, Waterloo).

Of course the battle system could be improved, but EU3's systems works quite well, with little micromanagement and a healthy mix of randomness and determination. For a game that focusses on economic development and diplomacy as well, an intricate battle system is not the most pressing issue.

 

[icedt729]

Time is also an important factor, especially because the devs want to make sure everything works smoothly in multiplayer. The game's pace simply doesn't have room for a full-on tactical battle every time two armies bump into each other, not when you have four hundred years of world history playing out. And the demands of designing, balancing and testing that battle system would be so huge that it would detract from the rest of the game in ways most players really don't want to see. The reason why Total War is so much lighter on campaign strategy is precisely because the battle system takes up almost all of their resources.

 

[takedown47]

it wont use up cpu. there was a game from about ten years ago called pax romana which used a system similar to whay i'm proposing and the game ran smooth.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

it wont use up cpu. there was a game from about ten years ago called pax romana which used a system similar to whay i'm proposing and the game ran smooth.

[...]

With "resources", icedt meant the development resources of Paradox interactive, not the CPU. Making a battle system and balancing it well means a couple hundred man-hours of development time, which in a limited team means less man-hours spent on developing the economy, trade, diplomacy, events, decisions, tech and so on. Stuff that matter for your game play. Not battles which would at best be a distractive mini-game that grows VERY tired VERY quickly when you play a 400 year campaign.

 

[altomanovic]

it wont use up cpu. there was a game from about ten years ago called pax romana which used a system similar to whay i'm proposing and the game ran smooth.
*****

Why not combine this with M:TW (first one) figurines and some stilized battlefield drawn in back... Something like this... That would be beyond amazing Just so that we have some influence over the battles and it still looks like EU

 

[Zelvik]

Waterloo is a perfect example of what the game simulates. In game turns "Waterloo" is not just the battle itself but the campaign, that encompasses the manouvering of the three armies the battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras (two French victories), as well as the failed chase of the Prussian army by Grouchy and the rearguard battle of Wavre (another French victory) that all contributed to the outcome of the campaign (well not to forget the battle of Waterloo itself that was one large puzzle stone in the French defeat). You see, you have 3 French victories. Taking Ligny alone in game turns the Prussians would be out of the picture and the French would go on to defeat the Allied forces at Waterloo. But its the campaign that is simulated not individual battles.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

it wont use up cpu. there was a game from about ten years ago called pax romana which used a system similar to whay i'm proposing and the game ran smooth.

And this for every single battle you are involved in? You really want to be controlling possibly a dozen battles at a time?

 

[icedt729]

Why not combine this with M:TW (first one) figurines and some stilized battlefield drawn in back... Something like this... That would be beyond amazing Just so that we have some influence over the battles and it still looks like EU

There's simply no time, especially not in multiplayer. The game progresses on a scale of days even at the slowest rate- something like this could maybe fit into HoI, which measures time in hours, but it's simply not possible given EU's current design and the dev's stated priorities.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

Apart from manpower gripes in 5.2, and a few other specific niggles, the combat system really is more or less fit for purpose; it's an energy efficient way to fight campaign after simulataneous campaign.

 

[takedown47]

And this for every single battle you are involved in? You really want to be controlling possibly a dozen battles at a time?

pax romana was a real time grand strategy just like EU, but the difference is battles only lasted 1 day. game paused until it was resolved. you played stratagems and selected a tactic pre game hoping it would defeat whatever strategy the enemy was using, sort of like paper scissors rock. also when you built legions they were automatically 5000 men strong (see screenshot) so there were not many armies on the map, just several doomstacks strategically sent to critical areas of your empire. battles were basically more decisive and epic than the ping pong whack a mole nonsense which goes on in paradox games.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

It burns mine eyes

 

[tuvix]

Before declaring a war, you should have a ability to "ask your council" what they think, is it wise or not, maybe a council of generals. When in war, like in real life, you should be able to move your armies only inside your provinces, but when they are outside your teritory it is all up to generals. That would be much better because then the ai could manage that armies of your allies move together in one army. That way it would be much easier to wage war. But you should be able to give them some goals they must do, like sige some province, or burn their lands.
Expenses in war should be much bigger than they are in eu3, war is very expensive and maintaining armies did always drain the state money. And a prologned war never did any good to any country.

 

[Seli]

It seems they are going to make generals more important in the coming CK2 DLC, perhaps that will show mechanisms that can end up in EU4 battles.

edit:

...

• Leader Focus on Combat: Appoint your generals wisely, their traits and skills are now of vital importance on the field of battle. More commander traits are now added to increase the importance of your choice of military leaders...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

pax romana was a real time grand strategy just like EU, but the difference is battles only lasted 1 day. game paused until it was resolved. you played stratagems and selected a tactic pre game hoping it would defeat whatever strategy the enemy was using, sort of like paper scissors rock. also when you built legions they were automatically 5000 men strong (see screenshot) so there were not many armies on the map, just several doomstacks strategically sent to critical areas of your empire. battles were basically more decisive and epic than the ping pong whack a mole nonsense which goes on in paradox games.

So, there you are in a multiplayer game, and player A gets into a war with player B. Their troops meet in a battle, and whilst this is being played out, player C sits idle. Later on, player C has a massive series of uprisings in his country, and proceeds to fight these with his armies, causing the game to pause for A and B whilst he fights each one of his dozen revolts.

As for the "whack a mole nonsense", it's quite rare to completely break and destroy an army in a single day of fighting. You can get days of maneuvering for position, followed by a couple of days of fighting, followed by pursuit and another battle as you try to force an army back to where they came from. Admittedly, the sometimes week to month long battles we get at the moment are not ideal, but they're certainly better than all or nothing one day engagement - you can actually commit an army, and send another to reinforce it.