|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Spain+Portugal was a slightly different story though. Napoleon clobbered the Austrians, Italians, Germans, Prussians, and Russians without needing to do any protracted sieges as compared to how EU4 works. Meanwhile in EU4 you would have to take multiple years each to siege down every single prince in the HRE as well as the 5+ forts in Austria just to get them to come to the table. I was mostly joking but yeah, sieges were simply not that common as it was much more pratical to face the enemy on the field. Remember how in EU2 every single province would get the fort upgrades? end game combat made the ww1 western front look like a high speed chase.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
It would be good if they found some way to make light infantry worth having even when you have lots of cash. IMO an interesting option would be to allow them to attack from the back row at reduced strength so that they are a weak but versatile unit which can do everything but not very well compared to heavy inf and archers which are stronger but specialised. You can flavour this as them being skirmish units with javelins etc. which I believe is fairly period appropriate. This would also make light inf a good way to bulk up a core of heavy inf as they would be able to filter into the front line as your expensive front liners lose morale, to keep the fight going for long enough for you to win, while still giving some value when not directly engaged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
What we need is a
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Mans posted:Chariots being useless is historically accurate I always thought that chariots were historically strong vs. priests. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Mans posted:Chariots being useless is historically accurate I thought chariots were great before cavalry was invented?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:The problem with this is that it requires you play a very certain way doing specific things with subjects and idea groups. I dont like playing that way and I should not have to, in addition to the fact that playing that way may not always be an option. The last bit was just something that occurred to me as I was writing the post as a funny gimmick to try. A single march or vassal was very useful to me in the described way though and does not require much in terms of gameplay sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:I thought chariots were great before cavalry was invented?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
double nine posted:Warlords and captains Generals and statesmen
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Oh sick, this is a welcome change:quote:SNEAKY EDIT: Getting donations for your mods is now allowed. Probably not gonna be remotely close to a living wage except for a couple of people but I would not be surprised at all if we start seeing some stuff with significantly higher production values coming out now that there’s some legitimate payoff, since that’ll motivate more people with genuine skills to join in. I also eagerly await endless drama from the big mod teams as nobody in them can agree on who actually deserves what from the money they get. (Woulda been nice if this had been the case a couple of years back when my mod was briefly the hotness, but I guess this means I have to actually put out something new) Koramei fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jun 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Generals and statesmen   
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:I thought chariots were great before cavalry was invented? Yeah but that was a few thousand years before this era
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:It would be good if they found some way to make light infantry worth having even when you have lots of cash. Maybe through tying it into the pop system? I have forgotten how they said the pops relate to troops but I could see there being some sort of, slaves and tribespeople can become certain cheap military units and the freemen/citizens/etc, the high ranking pops, can become heavy infantry and other more expensive unit types. If killing the unit kills the pop, deciding on an army composition for a war would then also become a process where you figure out where you want the demographic impact of the casualties to fall. Maybe you're behind on research but just got a ton of slaves from conquering Iberia so you just want to keep your citizens at home to contribute to tech development and throw all your new slaves into the meat grinder conquering north Africa. Do the military units work like in Vic2 where they are also pops with a culture and a religion etc that decide whether they participate in rebellions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
The fact that they emphasize the movement speed of the various units is interesting. If you're keeping the army in one coherent mass, movement speed shouldn't matter worth a drat since you're moving at the speed of your slowest unit, and if they're making it so that different units have different strategic speeds on the map that sounds like it's asking for a micromanagement nightmare as you split and reform armies constantly. The way they talk about units like the horse archers instead implies that movement on the tactical battlefield actually matters somehow, in some way. In most EU games maneuver just means the ability to hit units you're not directly facing, but that only matters if you outnumber the enemy. If horse archers are just plain "deadly to slower moving units," that seems to imply some kind of shakeup to the combat system. Something like the naval combat system in V2, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
It probably means that armies will default to the movement speed of its slowest unit, which might encourage you to split of light cavalry as scouts, or possibly using fast units to trick a weaker opposing army into battle until the slower units can reinforce them and crush the opposing army
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:It probably means that armies will default to the movement speed of its slowest unit, which might encourage you to split of light cavalry as scouts, or possibly using fast units to trick a weaker opposing army into battle until the slower units can reinforce them and crush the opposing army I hope not, this sort of thing is incredibly frustrating to deal with unless the speed difference is huge. If light infantry move double the speed of heavy inf it would be a big deal, if it's 20% not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
If that ends up being the case I’m going to make mister Fister Roboto sound like the apm king
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Maybe if they made units commit to movement after 1 day regardless of how long the journey is or something. Probably a bad idea but it would reduce the obnoxious spamming a little.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:It probably means that armies will default to the movement speed of its slowest unit, which might encourage you to split of light cavalry as scouts, or possibly using fast units to trick a weaker opposing army into battle until the slower units can reinforce them and crush the opposing army Movement used to work like this in EU3 but they patched it so cavalry moves at the same speed as infantry because having a difference promoted tedious gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Movement used to work like this in EU3 but they patched it so cavalry moves at the same speed as infantry because having a difference promoted tedious gameplay. Yeah the "Pop Demand mod" for Victora 2 does this as well and it's tedious as hell. The game is micromanagey enough as is without needing to split all my cavalry, infantry, and artillery into separate armies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:If that ends up being the case I’m going to make mister Fister Roboto sound like the apm king lol I really hope it is something to do with tactical combat, and that battles aren't just going to be the same old thing as in EU3/4 and V2 (and EU:R).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah the "Pop Demand mod" for Victora 2 does this as well and it's tedious as hell. The game is micromanagey enough as is without needing to split all my cavalry, infantry, and artillery into separate armies. I'm pretty sure it was similar in the base game as well
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:I'm pretty sure it was similar in the base game as well Somewhat, but the mod really leans into it. In the base game artillery and infantry move at the same rate and cavalry are a bit faster. In the mod, artillery are about half the speed of infantry and you really notice it when you're trying to chase down enemy armies if you're got them all grouped up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
I've said before that while it would be a big investment, changing CK/EU/V battles so that they take place on something like an 32x32 square checkerboard and you actually do get to see the two opposing generals fight it out on a 2d battlefield would be an interesting move.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Movement used to work like this in EU3 but they patched it so cavalry moves at the same speed as infantry because having a difference promoted tedious gameplay. Yes, I too remember the good old days of having a siege stack of artillery and infantry, assault stacks of infantry and cavalry, and occasionally detaching the cavalry to hunt down a stack that had been evading me for months and a few dozen mouse clicks only for them to get ripped apart because unsupported cavalry isn't the best against a full battle stack. By which I mean I was immensely happy when they announced that all units moved at the same pace strategically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Just replace the combat with a copy of Dominions' and make everyone miserable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Just buy out slitherine and use the pike and shot engine for combat resolution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
I wonder how combat in these games would function if it wasn’t possible for additional troops to join a battle. Either by making battles last no more than one or two days, or by locking units out of provinces where battle is taking place. One of the things I’ve often found frustrating in EU particularly is how battles can drag on for months meaning if you’re a medium sized country taking on a large one, a 40k vs 40k battle can quickly turn into a 40k vs 120k before it’s over. Or a battle against the HRE starts out as your force versus a few thousand, then a few more thousand, then a few more thousand, just and endless train of additional troops for the battle until Austria’s doom stack shows up. Preventing units from joining in-progress battles would prevent this while opening up some actual risk-reward considerations for both carpet sieges and variable unit speeds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Have time stop while combat resolves. Give us a log of events like march of the eagles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Have time stop while combat resolves. Give us a log of events like march of the eagles. That'd be bad for multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Would there be a gameplay downside to just having the battles instaresolve the tick they're joined? Spontaneously I'd say it seems like a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Would there be a gameplay downside to just having the battles instaresolve the tick they're joined? Spontaneously I'd say it seems like a good idea. Yes, you couldn't reinforce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Would there be a gameplay downside to just having the battles instaresolve the tick they're joined? Spontaneously I'd say it seems like a good idea. If this was implemented, I'd like it to pause the game ahead of combat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Would there be a gameplay downside to just having the battles instaresolve the tick they're joined? Spontaneously I'd say it seems like a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
16 combat phases per day instead of 1 wouldn't make the game more fun, but it would give more realistic battle durations
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
You should have to expend military points on digging latrines whenever your army stops moving for a day. Otherwise they'll lose men to attrition as the camp diseases build up. /s
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
it'd be interesting to have armies lock position when they enter a province and wait a week or so to actually engage, so you can rush in reinforcements but the battle is over in a tick once it happens
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
I remember playing Steppenwolf back when EU3 had different strategic speeds for cavalry, infantry, and artillery. The barbarian tribes around Rome had -100% attrition reduction so you could just zoom around with sonic doomstacks of cavalry and instantly win all battles 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Battle length has always been handwaved as 'also the time spent by the armies skirmishing and moving around the province, abstracted together'. Pick the right length for gameplay reasons then justify back from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:it'd be interesting to have armies lock position when they enter a province and wait a week or so to actually engage, so you can rush in reinforcements but the battle is over in a tick once it happens I think something like the above could have potential, and making maneuver a more important thing at the battle/tactical level could open up a bit of variety - some armies being harder to engage, but perhaps also not particularly strong at anything but raiding, to better differentiate between different approaches to warfare. The countdown for being able to outright flee would also begin during the maneuver phase, so it might be possible for one army to be defeated without a battle being fought. That'd obviously be annoying in the context of EU4, but if battles were made to actually count for a lot - even ones where the enemy just runs away before you even engage them, I think it could be made to work. The important bit would really be that winning a war wasn't contingent on essentially slaughtering an entire generation of fighting men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I was gonna suggest something like this, though I was thinking the maneuver phase would be of variable length, depending on terrain/army sizes/army composition/generals, and whether either army actually wants to engage the enemy. If for example one army is outnumbered, but reinforcements are moving in, that army would be attempting to delay the engagement for as long as possible. Having a more mobile army would of course help with that. With combat delayed, the actual fighty bit of a "battle" could then be far deadlier, rather than drag on for months as more and more armies enter the fray. Yeah, I think this is the best approach. Have some lead-up where both sides see pretty minimal casualties as their armies scout and skirmish, and after a semi-random amount of time have 1-3 days of decisive battle. It might require ridiculous micromanagement, but it could be really cool if you could set different instructions for different armies, with the unit's stats and the generals determining if their ability to achieve them. It could even lead to historically accurate situations where an army gets tied up in a province for months without seeing battle because the defenders keep out-maneuvering them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:43
|
|
