|
This would probably prevent the thing where you reinforce battles endlessly and have like half a million dead.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
punched my v-card at camp posted: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. Sooooo CK2's skirmish/melee phases, then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Some battles lasted more than one day. 99.9% of battles in EU4's timeperiod lasted no longer than 3 days. Battles should last 1-3 days. The game should give you better feedback about what happened in the battle/let you watch some sort of slow-mo replay of it (even a replay of the numbers churning). Problem solved. The most exciting part of EU4's combat is when there's a close battle swinging back and forth and you're able to influence it as it progresses by sending in well-timed reinforcements or cutting off enemy reinforcements. I'd rather not see that aspect go away. The real question isn't "What would you lose by making battles instant or 1-3 days," but "What would you gain?" What benefit is there to doing it this way? What problem is being solved? If it's just a realism thing, that seems dumb and pointless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:The most exciting part of EU4's combat is when there's a close battle swinging back and forth and you're able to influence it as it progresses by sending in well-timed reinforcements or cutting off enemy reinforcements. I'd rather not see that aspect go away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Gameplay-wise it can be frustrating when a battle goes on so long that it can be reinforced from literally the other side of the continent, but that's a relatively rarer thing than people make it out to be and I agree that shortening the battles to realistic lengths would take a lot out of the game compared to that minor benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
bring back reduced combat width in mountains so we can have proper battles again
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Reinforcing just makes things even easier for the larger side. They have to pin your stack once and then they can just conga line in everyone else. If you have faster battles you can destroy sieging armies of a larger enemy en detail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Reinforcing just makes things even easier for the larger side. They have to pin your stack once and then they can just conga line in everyone else. If you have faster battles you can destroy sieging armies of a larger enemy en detail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Good point. Faster battles could help reduce the problem of snowballing, by making divide and conquer more workable. Would this really be a good thing? Min-maxed super soldiers already routinely beat superior numbers and can only be beaten by a weaker but more numerous force if the player controlling it plays really well. Removing that component and making it so the player with the higher quality troops always wins would be terrible for game balance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:19
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Would this really be a good thing? Min-maxed super soldiers already routinely beat superior numbers and can only be beaten by a weaker but more numerous force if the player controlling it plays really well. Removing that component and making it so the player with the higher quality troops always wins would be terrible for game balance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:29
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Would this really be a good thing? Min-maxed super soldiers already routinely beat superior numbers and can only be beaten by a weaker but more numerous force if the player controlling it plays really well. Removing that component and making it so the player with the higher quality troops always wins would be terrible for game balance. I think I'd rather have the opportunity to pull off a defeat in detail through skillful play than be able to cultivate armies of space marines, if it really is one or the other. The former suggests an interesting dynamic process I can engage with, while the latter is just choosing the right bonuses. Could just build a combat model that makes a quality advantage less decisive, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
So are you doing away with supply limits too or is the cost of not having half your army lightning striked by their big stack just taking massive attrition on your whole army instead? Also I hope you never look away and miss your tiny reinforcement window!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Sooooo CK2's skirmish/melee phases, then? Yeah, I should have clarified that I had that in mind but with skirmish phases being pretty variable in length and melee phases being more decisive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
I love long-rear end battles, nothing better than trolling the AI in V2 by having built railroads so you can keep bringing in stacks quickly until there's 200k men fighting on each side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Combat should be like in hoi where you attack from one province to the other, make it so reinforncments have a chance to fail to reach the battle in time or something. dunnoDr. Video Games 0031 posted:The most exciting part of EU4's combat is when there's a close battle swinging back and forth and you're able to influence it as it progresses by sending in well-timed reinforcements or cutting off enemy reinforcements. I'd rather not see that aspect go away. Yes, absolutely fascinating game mechanic. Senor Dog posted:So are you doing away with supply limits too or is the cost of not having half your army lightning striked by their big stack just taking massive attrition on your whole army instead? Local superiority to receive an advantage on the local combat, if you want to reinfonce your army you need to keep them close to one another. Senor Dog posted:Also I hope you never look away and miss your tiny reinforcement window!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:I love long-rear end battles, nothing better than trolling the AI in V2 by having built railroads so you can keep bringing in stacks quickly until there's 200k men fighting on each side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Mans posted:Combat should be like in hoi where you attack from one province to the other, make it so reinforncments have a chance to fail to reach the battle in time or something. dunno Cute post, but you shouldn’t break up my post and act like the other sections don’t exist when making your pithy comments. Something happening once or twice isn’t necessarily the best basis for a videogame mechanic either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:V2 is in the enviable position of its warfare system actually being a pretty decent representation of warfare during the period, including having the length of your front relative to the armies fighting matter a great deal. I'd love for EU4 or Imperator to be as cohesive and in tune with the important aspects of warfare during those periods. Yeah one of my love/hate things with V2 is how you start off with EU style roaming armies but as your population and mobilization size goes up, and combat width goes down, you end up with long WW1 style fronts (especially as the unit stats themselves heavily shift to favour defense over offence). The "hate" aspect is how painful it is to micromanage at that stage. I would love a HoI4 style battle planner system that can handle the basics of setting up fronts and making offensive pushes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:Cute post, but you shouldn’t break up my post and act like the other sections don’t exist when making your pithy comments. I broke it into two parts and they composed exactly everything you typed so i'm not sure why you're clutching your pearls. Feeding an entire nation and their allies armies into a single battleground for a hell battle that lasts for a month is not only completely unhistorical, it's also completely asinine in gameplay terms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Mans posted:Feeding an entire nation and their allies armies into a single battleground for a hell battle that lasts for a month is not only completely unhistorical, it's also completely asinine in gameplay terms. I'm not ready to die on the hill but the month-long battles where reinforcements march in from across the country or across the continent is really absurd and, to me, un-fun. It is a huge disadvantage for smaller powers -troop quality non-withstanding-, completely a-historical, and not fun (needing to time sending in reinforcements because your generals cannot manage how your troops enter combat is so loltastic). It would be easy enough to add an auto-pause if you army gets close to another army (prevents losing your army before you know its in combat) to let the human decide if they want to change an army's "stance" so you could (try to) avoid combat (or even better, allow the player to set a few parameters for how an army behaves) so combat doesnt need to last for months to simulate "tactics" by forcing the player to micro moving in reinforcements in a very specific way at very specific times. I think what I am saying is that I am sure that if PDX wanted to, I have faith that they could come up with a better system. I'm not saying my suggestion above is the way to go, simply that in the time of typing up this post I can think of something that may or may not work; someone with training to think of these things that is being paid to do so could definitely do better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
I disagree with the rest of that but it being a huge disadvantage to smaller powers is a really valid complaint and almost enough to convince me by itself. Ironically afaik they took out combat width based on terrain stuff expressly to make battles shorter, but it was another huge blow to minors that I kind of wish they'd never done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
While we're making requests I'd like an automatic way to move a large army across a country without taking attrition. Like, say I'm at peace and I control France. I have an army of 40,000 men, my coastal provinces have supplies for 40,000 men, but my inland provinces only have supplies for 20,000. When I right-click to move into the centre of the country, my army should split into two sections which march separately so no men die from pointless attrition. It's a little thing, but it always bugs me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
That feature would be worthwhile for getting the AI to do it properly too. Then maybe we could even have actual attrition again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
They've already mentioned that in Imperator units will take time to regain combat readiness after moving or some similar mechanic, IIRC, which is hopefully a response and fix to this problem. I don't particularly mind the immersion breaking aspect of battles lasting months (I'm happy to abstract 'battle' to 'campaign' which makes it less rediculous) but the fact that it totally ruins the concept of local supremacy of force outside of "fighting at opposite ends of a continent-spanning monster" is awful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
Alternatively some sort of supply grace period in friendly territory so that when you march inland 1,000 men don't suddenly die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
I still don't get why attrition even exists in peacetime, considering that it increases micro/tedium and has literally no other impact on the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
It stops you from camping your whole army on the single super-reinforced mountain province on your border next to the enemy that you think will declare war on you/that you are about to declare war on. Etc. Supply grace sounds like a perfect solution to this problem though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It stops you from camping your whole army on the single super-reinforced mountain province on your border next to the enemy that you think will declare war on you/that you are about to declare war on. Etc. Supply grace sounds like a perfect solution to this problem though. This is why they changed it so attacks against a besieging force gives the besieger terrain disadvantages. Just slap a fort down on that province and attack the enemy when they move in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:They've already mentioned that in Imperator units will take time to regain combat readiness after moving or some similar mechanic, IIRC, which is hopefully a response and fix to this problem. Am I the only one who also thinks incentivizing micromanaging armies (it is never optimal to send more than the front lines' worth of soldiers into battle at first, and you should rotate new armies in) is.. not really good? Paradox has been moving away from micromanagement making you the best, and this has always stood out as just frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It stops you from camping your whole army on the single super-reinforced mountain province on your border next to the enemy that you think will declare war on you/that you are about to declare war on. Etc. Oh, yes, now I have to keep them in like three stacks right next to that province. What an amazing impact 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Am I the only one who also thinks incentivizing micromanaging armies (it is never optimal to send more than the front lines' worth of soldiers into battle at first, and you should rotate new armies in) is.. not really good? Paradox has been moving away from micromanagement making you the best, and this has always stood out as just frustrating. Yes that particular mechanic is terrible and I'm almost entirely sure that it only continues to exist because it adds a weird skill element to MP
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Am I the only one who also thinks incentivizing micromanaging armies (it is never optimal to send more than the front lines' worth of soldiers into battle at first, and you should rotate new armies in) is.. not really good? Paradox has been moving away from micromanagement making you the best, and this has always stood out as just frustrating. It's good because just blobbing your entire army up into a single stack is terrible. Hell, in EU2 you'd have to actually account for seasons because attacking in winter would ruin your army completely unless you split it apart. It was a terrible headache but it kind beats having the thirty years war being 200k vs 200k moshpits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Better idea: move supply limits, along with many other factors, from the province level to the state level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
The less I need to interact with my army in paradox games the better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
uPen posted:The less I need to interact with my army in paradox games the better. This but unironically(?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
What do you..do, then? In EU4 at least, army interaction is like half the game. I can see the argument in CK2 and Vicky though I suppose.Fister Roboto posted:Better idea: move supply limits, along with many other factors, from the province level to the state level. That'd mean every high attrition area would have to be state-sized, which would be okay half the time but really loving confusing in tons of parts of the map. e: literally the reason to have lots of provinces is for more granular army interaction. There's lots of things that can and hopefully will be offloaded to states but if you're gonna be moving stuff like attrition, you might as well just cut the number of provinces again. Which might not even be a bad thing, honestly I'm kinda eh on tons of provinces myself even though it looks flashier. AnoHito posted:Oh, yes, now I have to keep them in like three stacks right next to that province. What an amazing impact There are situations where it is. Whether that's worth the tradeoff of having to bother with peacetime attrition is questionable I guess. Maybe they could have it so there's no peacetime attrition except in border provinces or something. Koramei fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jun 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:This but unironically(?) I'm 100% serious. If I want to micromanage armies there's games that do that really well from platoon to division scale. If I want to give my syphilitic son control of Germany I'll play a paradox game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Mans posted:It's good because just blobbing your entire army up into a single stack is terrible. Koramei posted:What do you..do, then? In EU4 at least, army interaction is like half the game. I can see the argument in CK2 and Vicky though I suppose. Make a choice between letting you actually interact with your army (vs. just sending in stacks every few ticks), or do as the above where battles are faster and more decisive. This current inbetween is the worst of both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
How's it an inbetween right now? It's pretty micro heavy. Honestly I'm totally up for way less army control, if they make other mechanics substantially deeper rather than having half the game be about war. I agree that I don't really play Paradox games for that at all (although I actually like EU4 combat) but most of the other mechanics feed back into you punching above your weight via war, so if they turn it into nothing more than a box you get a number out of that's otherwise mostly beyond your control, then there need to be other ways to put yourself ahead other than colonization or relying on lucky inheritances. I'd love a less war-focused early modern game but EU is not that. Koramei fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jun 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
uPen posted:I'm 100% serious. If I want to micromanage armies there's games that do that really well from platoon to division scale. If I want to give my syphilitic son control of Germany I'll play a paradox game. same. no i dont care about making sure my army is at the ideal infantry to cavalry to artillery ratio, just have an ai that gets better with research do it for me
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 00:01
|
|
