WW1 scenario - Vicky or HOI or neither responsible for this?

[Aeon221]

I do not know if you meant this to be so but that is a really good overview of one of the many solid arguments Stephen Biddle's makes in his book Military Power.

It's pretty much a straight take of the writings of Soviet military theorists in the early 20th century + some modern reading. The Soviets were very good at the theory of war even though they sucked at a lot of other stuff. I've never heard of this Biddle guy, but sounds like fun.

 

[frolix42]

Something I hope to see in Victoria 3, something which I think Vic3 must have, is an evolution of warfare during the century Grand Campaign. From something like EU4 style warfare in 1836 to something like HoI4 warfare in 1935. It's a tall order, but would be amazing to play with.

 

[Leducky]

It's pretty much a straight take of the writings of Soviet military theorists in the early 20th century + some modern reading. The Soviets were very good at the theory of war even though they sucked at a lot of other stuff. I've never heard of this Biddle guy, but sounds like fun.

He is a professor at George Washington University. If you enjoy reading about modern war theory he is probably the go-to American. https://elliott.gwu.edu/biddle . I highly recommend his book, he uses a lot of stats in his empirical model but you can follow his argument without it if this is not your cup of tea, he makes two interesting case studies as well. The first one is Falaise and the second war Desert Storm one.

 

[Howdyhedberg]

The Great war Mod for Hoi4 is great. Something Official could be a DLC or expansion that lets you start earlier and later be able to connect to HOI4. It would be nice to have Trees that "changed" based on the outcome of the Great war.

 

[Jorlaan]

I quite like the WWI mod for HoI III.
A game of it's own would be fantastic though.

 

[WeissRaben]

The problem with saying no to WW1 in Victoria is that WW1 as historical could have happened at any point from the last twenty years of the 19th century and onwards. Technology, as proved by the American Civil War, was getting there already in the Sixties'; all that was needed was for it to spread among all combatants, but the European wars in that period were usually pretty asymmetric from that point of view. And after 1871, nothing else of note popped up until WW1, 43 years later. But what if it does? Does this precocious WW1 get fought with WW1 weapons but Napoleonic systems, just because the game doesn't even try to model Great War realities? Or does the game end with 1870, which implies an incredibly short campaign that excludes the rush for Africa and late industrialization? It's a bit of a catch 22.

 

[Avian Overlord]

the trench warfare seen on the western front is properly the hardest part of WWI to simulate; sure the existing "dig in" defensive bonus is there, and could be made both stronger, and faster to build up with late game tech, but maintaining that stalemate for lengthy periods of time would be unlikely(though some would argue that that's a good thing from the pov of wanting the game to be fun over realistic).

I think you could use HOI style combat but add the ability to set armies into a "bombard" stance. In this stance armies wouldn't attack-move but would instead fire on adjacent armies and do damage to them. So if the forts and entrenchments make attacks nonviable, both armies will be in bombard stance, and you have a stalemate with casualties until something comes to change the situation.

 

[FOARP]

I think you could use HOI style combat but add the ability to set armies into a "bombard" stance. In this stance armies wouldn't attack-move but would instead fire on adjacent armies and do damage to them. So if the forts and entrenchments make attacks nonviable, both armies will be in bombard stance, and you have a stalemate with casualties until something comes to change the situation.

HOI2: Arsenal of Democracy had this. It wasn't very good or used very often.

The problem with saying no to WW1 in Victoria is that WW1 as historical could have happened at any point from the last twenty years of the 19th century and onwards. Technology, as proved by the American Civil War, was getting there already in the Sixties'; all that was needed was for it to spread among all combatants, but the European wars in that period were usually pretty asymmetric from that point of view. And after 1871, nothing else of note popped up until WW1, 43 years later. But what if it does? Does this precocious WW1 get fought with WW1 weapons but Napoleonic systems, just because the game doesn't even try to model Great War realities? Or does the game end with 1870, which implies an incredibly short campaign that excludes the rush for Africa and late industrialization? It's a bit of a catch 22.

The ONLY place to put WW1 is where it will give the best game play. There is no reason to say "Vicky's time period includes the time when WW1 occured historically, therefore it must have WW1 and it cannot be included in any other game" if it sucks in terms of gameplay and accuracy. And let's face it, in Vicky 2 it pretty much does suck. Vicky 1 was marginally better but only by a bit.

So let Vicky keep it's faux-great-war-wars which will never be anything like WW1 because of the requirement that Vicky also be able to simulate Napoleonic-style warfare. Let's have an actual WW1 as a stand-alone expansion for HOI or something along those lines.

 

[J_Master]

Whilst I must agree that the militairy part of Vicky 2 is not the best to say the least, it still offers a good representation of WW1. The effects that a war like it has on the population of a country, on the economy of a country and the potential revolts that could occur if that war goes down south. Whilst it still has many flaws in that regard, I think that this is where a Vicky 3 would shine, not necessarily in the actual war department

 

[FOARP]

not necessarily in the actual war department

Which is a problem when you are talking about simulating war.

And this appears to have passed a lot of people here by, but, HOI4 does have a much more developed manpower and production system than previous editions of HOI. In terms of the economics of simulating WW1, I don't think it is at all obvious where it is less capable than Vicky.

In HOI4 I can produce artillery guns, tanks, aircraft, and infantry weapons of different marks - can you do that in Vicky? No. Instead there is only generic artillery and infantry weapons, and later tanks and aircraft.

In HOI4 I can intercept the enemy's trade routes with a distant blockade - can you do that in Vicky? No, you have to blockade specific ports. Submarine warfare is impossible.

In Vicky aircraft are simulated as a land unit. Pretty obviously this is deficient compared to HOI4.

In Vicky combat begins once the units arrive in an enemy province. This makes simulating trench warfare in a realistic fashion impossible - instead you have a war where your troops leave their trenches to attack only to find that their trenches have been occupied whilst they were attacking. By contrast HOI4 operates a much more realistic "move is attack" system where your troops only advance once the enemy has been defeated.

Vicky has no line-of-supply system for troops. In HOI4 this exists so you pretty much have to have a line of supply otherwise you will be defeated.

Vicky has a silly occupation system which allows you to advance through enemy territory without occupying it. Imagine a WW1 where the Russian march all the way to Berlin without occupying any territory, and then occupy Berlin. By contrast in HOI4 this is impossible.

None of this means you can't still have your generic wars-that-are-nothing-like-WW1 in Vicky. It just means that the real WW1 doesn't belong with Vicky unless Vicky changes a lot.

 

[Woifee]

You know Vic2 os an old gane while HoI4 pretty new is.

 

[WeissRaben]

Which is a problem when you are talking about simulating war.

And this appears to have passed a lot of people here by, but, HOI4 does have a much more developed manpower and production system than previous editions of HOI. In terms of the economics of simulating WW1, I don't think it is at all obvious where it is less capable than Vicky.

In HOI4 I can produce artillery guns, tanks, aircraft, and infantry weapons of different marks - can you do that in Vicky? No. Instead there is only generic artillery and infantry weapons, and later tanks and aircraft.

In HOI4 I can intercept the enemy's trade routes with a distant blockade - can you do that in Vicky? No, you have to blockade specific ports. Submarine warfare is impossible.

In Vicky aircraft are simulated as a land unit. Pretty obviously this is deficient compared to HOI4.

In Vicky combat begins once the units arrive in an enemy province. This makes simulating trench warfare in a realistic fashion impossible - instead you have a war where your troops leave their trenches to attack only to find that their trenches have been occupied whilst they were attacking. By contrast HOI4 operates a much more realistic "move is attack" system where your troops only advance once the enemy has been defeated.

Vicky has no line-of-supply system for troops. In HOI4 this exists so you pretty much have to have a line of supply otherwise you will be defeated.

Vicky has a silly occupation system which allows you to advance through enemy territory without occupying it. Imagine a WW1 where the Russian march all the way to Berlin without occupying any territory, and then occupy Berlin. By contrast in HOI4 this is impossible.

None of this means you can't still have your generic wars-that-are-nothing-like-WW1 in Vicky. It just means that the real WW1 doesn't belong with Vicky unless Vicky changes a lot.

And Hearts of Iron fails almost completely in representing the actual effect of the war on population, exception made for a couple of modifiers.

 

[FOARP]

And Hearts of Iron fails almost completely in representing the actual effect of the war on population, exception made for a couple of modifiers.

1) HOI4 as of WTT has national morale.

2) HOI4 has mobilization statistics that affect speed of training and level of industrial output.

And what does Vicky actually have? The spawning of easily-defeated generic red-rebels if certain conditions are met, and a war-exhaustion stat. And that's it. And on the flip-side you've got wars every five years for the rest of eternity after any big war, no LoC mechanics, nothing like modern naval warfare, nothing like modern warfare, a diplomacy model that is nothing like the coalitions that fought WW1, and a "realistic" economics model that is completely broken in the last 1/3rd of the game.

In a WW1/HOI4 context the player could order guns of specific calibres, warships of specific classes, infantry weapons of specific types. They could fight the war hour-by-hour, deciding to launch a night-attack here, build a defensive line there, intervene in civil wars such as that in Finland in 1918. This is not possible in Vicky which lacks the number of provinces that HOI4 has, and runs one-day turns, and lacks the advantages of the HOI4 diplomatic model.

 

[qer]

Producing specific equipment like Hoi4 isn't something I want in Vic. They way the unit designer worked in Hoi3 is much better for gameplay than the build everything in Hoi4. And in Vic you also need to build supplies and munition, something Hoi4 completely ignores. If it's done right, combat in Vic3 could be much more engaging than the sorry excuse that we have in Hoi4

 

[FOARP]

Producing specific equipment like Hoi4 isn't something I want in Vic. They way the unit designer worked in Hoi3 is much better for gameplay than the build everything in Hoi4. And in Vic you also need to build supplies and munition, something Hoi4 completely ignores. If it's done right, combat in Vic3 could be much more engaging than the sorry excuse that we have in Hoi4

So, if I understand your post correctly:

1) Manufacturing individual weapons systems is a drag which you can't be bothered with.

2) Manufacturing fuel and supplies is, on the other hand, totally rad.

3) The next episode of the Paradox game series which has never simulated warfare very well, especially not modern warfare, is going to be better at simulating a modern-style war than the present edition of the game series which is specifically made for simulating modern-style warfare.​

 

[qer]

So, if I understand your post correctly:

1) Manufacturing individual weapons systems is a drag which you can't be bothered with.

2) Manufacturing fuel and supplies is, on the other hand, totally rad.

3) The next episode of the Paradox game series which has never simulated warfare very well, especially not modern warfare, is going to be better at simulating a modern-style war than the present edition of the game series which is specifically made for simulating modern-style warfare.​

I mean manufacturing specific equipment like going from weapons 1 to weapons 2. I don't want interchangeable MF that I can passing to production runs. And as for the third point, we need to wait and see, but hoi4 does a rather poor job at simulating war. Modern warfare should also take the economic resources of each nation into account, something hoi4 almost completely ignore