EDIT: This has nothing to do with the Victoria 3 "army base" system. If you're gonna just hit "disagree" without reading the bullet points below because you don't like Victoria 3's system, don't bother.
I think one of the most frequent complaints I see here is that nations can ship and move unrealistic numbers of troops all around the world with minimal downside. So this caused me to think: What prevents this? Logistics of course, but a full logistical system such as HoI4's eats a lot of processing power and becomes something of a game in itself. So I tried to come up with an easier solution (and also one that the AI can understand better) and came up with army bases. Here's how they'd work:
- You would no longer directly build armies, but instead would build and expand army bases, which would automatically hire troops to a certain composition set by you. EDIT: Those troops would be placed in an army that functions exactly the same way armies do in EU4 right now, with the differences below applied.
- Armies could only move a certain number of provinces from their base before they start suffering combat penalties and attrition.
- Bases would build troops out of a local manpower pool instead of a global one.
- Under certain conditions (national ideas, idea groups, etc.) bases could build out of regional manpower (Askaris, Gurkhas, etc.), which might have combat penalties but enjoy bonuses in certain types of terrain, or have a higher local force limit than non-regional manpower bases.
- Bases might have special upgrades allowing for elite units to be produced with higher upkeep costs, or allowing for "light" armies which would have combat penalties but increased range compared to normal bases, etc.
- Fleets with transport ships stationed on a coastline could temporarily turn those transports into a base for the troops they're carrying, but that base would only be at full efficiency for coastline provinces adjacent to that sea zone and combat penalties and attrition would start at the very next tiles. This would greatly encourage historical expansion along the African and Asian coast, where establishing a base first (Goa, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, etc.) would be vital to projecting power in the region.
- Bases could be disbanded for free and all armies they produced would disperse back into the local/regional manpower pool.
- Mercenary companies, when hired, would build a base in a province in your territory set by you, and would still have their own manpower pool.
- Small Conquistador armies would be capable of operating at full efficiency without a base if a nation has Exploration ideas or its EU5 equivalent. These armies would be very small, however, and not useful for fighting battles against major powers or nations on the same tech level.
- Base cost would scale with size, and size would be limited by the manpower of your owned, same/tolerated/accepted culture provinces in the region it's built. If using regional manpower, the culture limitation is waived.
- If an army's base is occupied, it can no longer reinforce until the base is recaptured. It retains its current operational region (presumably there's other infrastructure in the area they're used to using).
I think this would be a way more fun and interesting army system than the current one. It would also eliminate a lot of the army ping-pong in the game as it stands, since occupying bases would become a vital strategic goal and effectively eliminate armies from the field when accomplished. It's also another thing to upgrade and improve about your nation, which will add more gameplay to peacetime as well.
No.
This was a time where warfare was not done through an entire front, but in columns of individual armies, which EU4 already does. This means that the "calculations" you are referring to would be orders of magnitude fewer than in HoI, and so would their impact on performance.
Tying armies to imaginary bases is a bad idea though, as would make warfare overly abstracted and calcified, which is the single biggest flaw Victoria 3 has.
The game would benefit much more from a
proper modern age logistics system.
That Indian army moving into Siberia to siege a random fort? Either they set up a proper supply line or watch them perish.
Unit reinforcement should scale with how well your troops are being supplied. Cut off an enemy army from its supply line and watch their numbers dwindle over time. No more doom stacking in the middle of nowhere.
Split off your army to garrison supply routes, otherwise a smart opponent will just harass your supply route and your army will starve. This means that infinite offensive operations will be extremely inefficient, thus moving warfare to a more gradual system, as it was during the time period.
Make it so you can allow your troops to live off the land. This increases devastation, decreases morale and discipline but allows you to survive while cut off. Or something of the sort.
Add a naval logistics system. Napoleon had to leave Egypt because, while he could supply his army locally, he could not reinforce it due to the British blockade.
Unit morale should also scale with supply.
This allows for a reasonably simple way to simulate modern age warfare. Setting up a siege deep in enemy territory thus becomes a much more difficult affair. Remove the fort movement block system, thus if an enemy chooses to move past a fort they can do so, but their logistics situation would become very dire.
