I realize that Paradox Development Studio and Paradox France aren't connected at the hip anymore, and I realize that the way that generals are implemented may be a part of the Clausewitz engine, but can be please replace the Fire-Shock-Maneuver-Siege method of generalship with AGEOD's Command-Attack-Defense? I think that it makes a lot more sense to implement Clausewitz's offense/defense dialectic than to occasionally get an insanely innovative general who's all about Firing on the enemy in 1420.
The way I imagine CAD could be implemented:
Command would be how many soldiers the general could command before attrition and would effect speed. Kings would get +5/+10 and you could have National Ideas that would effect command (as well as tech, leading to the divisional structures of the 1800s). The Defensive trait will add to whatever defensive modifiers a province already has, and if you have extended siege combat, a defensive commander would be give bonuses to waiting out a siege. The Offensive trait will take away whatever defensive modifiers an enemy's province has (so a 4 Offensive commander attacking a 3 defensive commander in mountains would only suffer a -1 malus, while a level 3 offensive commander attacking a level 1 defensive commander in plains will get +1), and will give bonuses to assaulting fortresses. The offensive/defensive slider (if it stays) would give bonuses to offensive and defensive traits respectively, while, say, offensive would give troops more discipline/morale and defensive would give higher attrition/more garrisons.
You could then make the national ideas which effect leader abilities just straight out give bonuses, with Siege Corps just giving a Bonus to Sieges for instance. The generals idea could give +Command or would give + to either defensive or offensive. I feel that this system would be a bit more intuitive and would, again, be more sensical than ahistorically fire-oriented generals coming up before the invention of firearms.
The way I imagine CAD could be implemented:
Command would be how many soldiers the general could command before attrition and would effect speed. Kings would get +5/+10 and you could have National Ideas that would effect command (as well as tech, leading to the divisional structures of the 1800s). The Defensive trait will add to whatever defensive modifiers a province already has, and if you have extended siege combat, a defensive commander would be give bonuses to waiting out a siege. The Offensive trait will take away whatever defensive modifiers an enemy's province has (so a 4 Offensive commander attacking a 3 defensive commander in mountains would only suffer a -1 malus, while a level 3 offensive commander attacking a level 1 defensive commander in plains will get +1), and will give bonuses to assaulting fortresses. The offensive/defensive slider (if it stays) would give bonuses to offensive and defensive traits respectively, while, say, offensive would give troops more discipline/morale and defensive would give higher attrition/more garrisons.
You could then make the national ideas which effect leader abilities just straight out give bonuses, with Siege Corps just giving a Bonus to Sieges for instance. The generals idea could give +Command or would give + to either defensive or offensive. I feel that this system would be a bit more intuitive and would, again, be more sensical than ahistorically fire-oriented generals coming up before the invention of firearms.
Last edited:
