If battalions really are intelligently borrowed and released by generals sharing a front, this is going to be great. A lot hangs on the actual intelligence of these fellas. Would like to see some estimate of their effectiveness accomplishing their assignments in the UI, too. I might’ve missed it.
The way they describe these conjoined efforts across an entire border remind me of setting orders in Diplomacy. I like the idea of playing a simulated, non-deterministic game of 1800-1914 Dip.
It’s interesting to me that flotillas and battalions seem to be a form of goods storage. They take a flow of military goods and may take a long time to become “combat ready” - i.e. full of goods. Then when they are damaged they need more flow to fill them up again. I guess the same mechanism works when constructing or upgrading a building.
Yeah, in theory the sailors mechanic was supposed to include some level of pushback on the ability to maintain a fleet in being and on mission.
In practice it was inconsequential except at the very early game and if you only had 1 or 2 port provinces and a lot of money. Basically it only ever seemed to limit Austria or Hungary to any meaningful extent.
This one is pure gold I think. All the short and long-term consequences of war, how armies are supported and deployed is great. I especially like this:
The intention here is not only to give the player a lot of economic levers to pull to prepare their country for war, although that is certainly part of it. A big reason for making wars approach the real-life cost is to encourage the player to think hard about the opportunity cost of war - that is, what you’re missing out on by spending your resources on war instead of something else - and incentivize solving your diplomatic conflicts before war breaks out. If war was a cost-effective way both of increasing your power and decreasing your enemy’s power, diplomacy would be relegated to nothing but faux formalities before fighting begins. But if neither party truly desires a war, no matter the power discrepancy between them, that’s when the Diplomatic Play intimidation game to see who blinks first can become real and tense.
It’s really taking the Vic2 benefits praised in ACOUP and doubling-down on them.
I am really excited about this game. I have not read a single dev diary beyond the first one, purely because I am so excited reading the details will just make the wait seem even longer.
The big news about no more micro-managed units on the screen has even seeped into my dark cave, and I am really happy about it. Moving around individual armies in Victoria 2 was not anywhere close to being the most fun or engaging part of the game. The idea that we can remove it and (hopefully) deepen strategic/economic/political systems and give the AI an actual chance really interests me.
It reminds me to some extent of one of the few non-Paradox GSGs Realpolitik which is set in the modern world, it had a system where you sent armies to provinces then a battle screen came up showing results. I think it worked just fine.
There’s still lots of opportunities to move pieces around each inch of the map in the EU and CK universes.
I always though they should include a delay in the orders. Each order to an stack takes some days to activate/execute (depending on technology, province, distance, etc). And changing an in-progress order has a bigger delay.
A simple change like that would make ordering stuff around much more strategic and increase the need for planning.
Even take a page from Old World and make army orders consume some abstract c&c resource.
The problem is, of course, the AI should use the same system, and that some sort of long distance routing mechanic should be forced on armies that lose a battle.
The problem was always too much detail and too little strategy. There’s so much detail and clicking, but the actual strategy once a war starts is “raise all the troops, bunch them up, send them at the enemy stack and hope you win”. The complexity and depth are at the tactical level, with different troop types, positions in the line, combat phases, morale and so on, but that’s just the computer having fun. Player control is at the operational level, where you just throw stacks at each other. All the clicking is just busy work.
In a Total War game, the strategy matters because it sets the conditions for the tactical battle. Here the tactical battles are outside player control and too opaque to influence.
Maybe players with more experience than me can find interesting strategic dilemmas in raising armies and moving them on the map. I never managed that.
I’ve never really enjoyed it either unless you focus the game around it like Hearts of Iron. Mostly I find the actual moving stacks around gameplay tedious in a game like EU4. Sure, on paper there’s army composition (with often a one size fits most answer) and terrain and stuff but mostly it’s just me playing whack-a-mole chasing AI armies around the map.
I was very happy to hear that Victoria 3 is taking a more hands-off approach where the focus can be more on the strategy, not the moving armies around stuff.
Those ideas sound good in theory but are often irritating when implemented. In most modern 4X and empire building games you know if another country will accept your diplomatic proposal before you send it, and it’s effective immediately. Even in EU3 (my memory might be failing here but I’m fairly sure) you’d have to wait for an answer for some time and you’d only have an estimation of the answer (like maybe or very likely).
More recently in CK2 you had seasonal decisions. Like you could only have a feast in winter and hunt in summer, I think. It was realistic and very bothersome. CK3 gives you arbitrary limits as in you can only go to a real hunt once per 5 years but it removes “realistic” limits.
Delayed orders for armies work magnificently in many real time wargames. It’s not like it’s a new mechanic, and it’s very different to diplomatic proposals, etc. (it adds much more uncertainty and less ability to react)
Delays would make whack a mole impossible, since the enemy army won’t be there when yours arrive necessarily, thus having a defense in depth (with defensive armies in forts, etc) would be necessary to ensure safety of your borders, and wars would mostly be limited to a big stack against a big stack, and the loser have no a very hard time to recover (which is quite period appropriate for IR and CK3).
But anyway, like other I’ve always found the military aspect extremely lacking and unbelievable in Paradox games. I love that Vicky 3 is abstracting it.
We’re talking about a level of detail that a rare wargame is going for. In an empire building game a lot of delays make sense (construction, envoy travel) but adding this whole dimension would move the game too far.
The trouble is that, at a practical level, there would need to be some kind of mechanism for standing orders, or contingency plans built in. At the end of the day it is true that a monarch could not issue a directive to an army in Goa that was followed immediately while sitting in Versaillles, but on the flip side said monarch would very likely have sat in meetings for weeks and months prior to deploying those troops gaming out scenarios, crafting directives and orders, and generally having a plan in place.
You can’t do that in PDS games generally because that is a whole big system. And realistically if you implemented it would become very frustrating to actually play in a EU4 scale game. You would have generals sitting around doing nothing. The reality is that a game would have to be built at the ground up to facilitate such mechanics. You need to create a way for a player to have the ability to craft and prepare plans, create standing orders, and direct armies through broad strokes in advance.
The interesting bit and the strategy comes from utilizing the terrain. Forcing enemies to engage you over rivers or into mountain provinces. Knowing how to utilize maneuver to prevent getting caught out in unfavorable terrain. Wars become interesting when you are having to utilize the map to try and force conflict on your terms. Why is Byzantium such an interesting start? Because you really have to carefully manage mechanics in order to forge a tactical battle into a strategic victory. Northern Italy and southern Germany are fascinating to play in because of the Alps. Taking on the HRE or France and using the passes and mountains to funnel the enemy into your desired battles is a fun puzzle.
Really the interesting bit does come when you fully understand the map and maneuver, and can use the various combat elements to win battles that numerically you should lose.
Not trying to claim it is some masterpiece of tactical combat, but merely pointing out that there is more to it than have bigger army = win.
It’s like 95% of the equation, in games like Stellaris, CK, and EU (notably, not HoI). The most important thing I found that allowed me to win wars was to just bring more troops, by any means necessary. You can faff about, hoping for the best Martial skill leader, put them with the best levy and retinue compositions, and meet an enemy on favorable terrain, and maybe you win a 4000 v. 6000 battle. Maybe a duel fires and you lose it and the battle anyway. Whereas hiring mercenaries or catching your opponent with their stack split is a guaranteed win every time. It’s so much more reliable and easier to execute.
I’m excited to see a game with that gameplay removed to focus more on pops, politics, and diplomacy.
All other factors being equal, sure. But tech level (pips), discipline, max morale, damage modifiers, combat width, army composition, combat ability, etc. all matter a lot.
Meaning if two armies of roughly equivalent discipline, morale, and combat ability meet in neutral terrain? Sure the size matters most. But once you start to push some of those other factors, winning battles against 2:1 or 3:1 and beyond odds becomes not just possible, but expected. Jokes about Prussian space marines go here.
I understand your point, and you are not wrong that numbers are always good. And no matter how well you do other things if numbers go to far against you it doesn’t matter, but there is a reason late game China is so easy to take on even if Ming hasn’t exploded, and it isn’t because they have fewer units.
But those factors, and the “maneuvering” don’t bring in strategic decisions either, as far as I could tell. It’s either a number that needs to be high, or a math puzzle with one best answer.
In Total War, or XCOM or other games with a tactical layer, the answer to what sort of units you should get depends on how you want to use them, and each possible force composition would bring different strengths and weaknesses. Interesting choices and all that. In Paradox games you get the unit the guide says is optimal in terms of combat power per cost.
They do, and I think they matter more in EU than CK. I’ve never lost a 3 to 1 or won a 1 to 3 battle in CK.
To be fair, most of the examples you list as relevant factors don’t come into play when discussing tactical army maneuvers, which is what Vicky is removing. I assume tech level, morale, combat width and army composition should all still be factors in Vicky.
The factors that matters the most when discussing tactical map maneuvering is terrain and army grouping. Personally, I find my tactics there to be very similar in all situations. Group up, try to catch the enemy ungrouped. If they have more dudes, hide behind a river in difficult terrain and hope for the best.
I think each game needs its own solution. What works for Vicky may not make sense for Stellaris or EU. Stellaris, as a space based game where the pew pew is expected, could experiment with making combat more tactical rather than less.