|
Panzeh posted:It's like that one developer that's trying to make a ww2 tactical game where the entire game is dialogue trees. People just hear about it and go gaga over it because they think "finally, a ww2 tactical game i can play, one in which theres really not much tactical maneuvering at all" It's almost like different ideas are good, and different explorations of familiar scenarios are inherently more interesting I'll take a million Urban Empires over another SimCity clone
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 12:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
A new immersive sim where you play as Pyotr Stolypin. Sneak through the Tsar's palace and Imperial Ministries to enact policies the will strengthen the Russian Empire and secure the loyalty of the russian people to their Tsar, while skillfully avoiding getting fired by the Tsar or shot by SR revolutionaries & Tsarist Secret Policemen. Features mild horror elements as you are stalked by both Dimitry Bogrov--who wants to kill you in the name of both the Tsar and Socialism, depending on who you ask--and a crippling depression brought on by the realisation that your efforts to save an autocrat will be roundly rejected by that autocrat, who is a bumbling, gullible and arrogant fool that for some utterly insane reason you still feel loyalty to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 12:58
|
|
|
Y'all need to play Suzerain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 13:24
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:It's almost like different ideas are good, and different explorations of familiar scenarios are inherently more interesting I mean I don’t think that’s true. I think that’s one of those things that people like in theory but in practice would hate. Though I feel this would happen when these pre release threads happen as it’s all idea guts that never think about actually developing a game. Where instead of a sprawling mess it’s usually best to focus on something
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I mean I don’t think that’s true. I think that’s one of those things that people like in theory but in practice would hate. Yeah, and honestly a lot of stuff in this vein gets made, it's just not very good. See: Radio Commander. You toy around with it, and then the novelty wears off and you realize it's an awful strategy game. There are tons of indie games that try to do this because it's much easier to obfuscate than make systems and have them engagable. These threads do tend to be 'wow this sounds cool' without really thinking things through. The paradox forums are much, much worse though, and they're freaking out over the laissez faire change making it not as stupid in the gameplay sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 14:06
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Y'all need to play Suzerain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, and honestly a lot of stuff in this vein gets made, it's just not very good. See: Radio Commander. You toy around with it, and then the novelty wears off and you realize it's an awful strategy game. There are tons of indie games that try to do this because it's much easier to obfuscate than make systems and have them engagable. Yeah, and I'd rather have Radio Commander and Radio General then yet another hex and counter wargame. It's largely a moot point with Vicky because this is a very different beast, but Imperator was just another EU4 (well, an EU:Rome) and nobody liked that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
I mean that had nothing to do with being a warts,e and more to do with Rome not having an identity which was already EU4s gimmick. Though it’s a good example of why just throwing ideas with no cohesion just doesn’t work Vicky, CK, and HOI are stronger not because they are different games or more immersive, but because they do something relative to themselves that the others don’t
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Yeah, and I'd rather have Radio Commander and Radio General then yet another hex and counter wargame. It's largely a moot point with Vicky because this is a very different beast, but Imperator was just another EU4 (well, an EU:Rome) and nobody liked that. I'd much rather have more well thought out, well done hex and counter wargames than more radio commanders, or suzerains, or burden of commands or whatever. At least those try to be interesting games in play(though a lot of the ones that come out are, yeah dreck). Then again, i don't play games for the narrative of them. Story in games is like a story in porn, etc. (thanks john carmack)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
I dunno I kind of like the idea of slightly vague newspaper headlines or alerts that are like "uh oh looks like Russia is building a big fleet" in some ways it's less information because there are no exact numbers, but in other ways it's actually more info for the player because it's flagging something that you might not spot unless you are poring over the ledger. like there's a difference between perfect information being theoretically available to the player and the player actually spotting big shifts in global power or production Kind of a separate point but I also like the idea of newspapers / alerts because as a bad paradox player I've had a lot of moments where I suddenly realise that the giant nation next to me has splintered into three new nations and I didn't even notice. Or the nation I've been planning to go to war with has a new ally and I don't even realise until I'm on the declare war screen. So I hope there are alerts for diplomatic events between the great powers at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
fuf posted:I guess Imperator doesn't have a multiplayer lobby, the host just loads the game and then opens it up for others to join. Oh like in Stellaris? Yeah my experience with that has been overwhelmingly negative for multisession multiplayer. Plus issues where if there's a password, some people just can't join at all, period. Panzeh posted:Most of these ''thematic" limitations just kind of end up slowing the whole game down a bunch and making it more random. I'm not sure if it is inherently bad for the game to "slow down" a big problem for me in stellaris is just how fast the tech and snowballing can be. For a game with vicky which presupposes mostly established polities; there's no reason why the gameplay should be particularly fast until the end game where the technological progress has exceeded mankinds ability to reconcile all of its knowledge, forcing the mind to flee into a comforting new dark age. quote:I kinda think someone should at some point give the 'immersion' gamers what they want and make a paradox game where instead of having a nice UI and map you have to first person navigate several ministries and go through dialogue trees to find out basic statistics about a region, then run over to the chancellery to order railroad construction. I can't imagine that ever being remotely fun to play out, but people really like to hear about bizarre concepts. You're thinking a bit of Long Live the Queen a bit here  Which while a cool game I note, it not remotely akin to the suggestion of like, "Mission orders and economic information are on a delay according to distance (modified by tech and infrastructure)" is hardly adding dialogue trees to a first person shooter that's really a huge amount of hyperbole. CharlestheHammer posted:I mean that had nothing to do with being a warts,e and more to do with Rome not having an identity which was already EU4s gimmick. There's a load of cohesion, especially in context to my previous idea of substates. You're honestly just being dismissing and handwavey without an actual substantial argument. You have to be deliberately avoiding engaging with the idea to think there's no cohesion. Panzeh posted:I'd much rather have more well thought out, well done hex and counter wargames than more radio commanders, or suzerains, or burden of commands or whatever. At least those try to be interesting games in play(though a lot of the ones that come out are, yeah dreck). Most people play paradox games for the emergent ludonarrative of the gameplay. fuf posted:I dunno I kind of like the idea of slightly vague newspaper headlines or alerts that are like "uh oh looks like Russia is building a big fleet" Yeah exactly; a lot of paradox games have the problem that the player, especially new players kinda have no idea how to contextual what's good or bad. What's a good fleet loadout in Stellaris? A new player has no idea. What's a good division template in Hoi? The player has no idea. Are you as a USSR player in good shape to fend off Germany? A new player will have no idea. Part of the idea here as fuf notes is to actually have a system which highlights whats important to the player without filling up their screen with annoying pop ups and only a minimum of those notification icons at the top when I suggested the return of the V2 newspapers. Something that looks at the information for you and contextualizes it. Instead of flooding the player with numbers that don't immediately mean anything you actually point out area's of broader interest. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jun 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
Just because you say there is cohesion doesn’t meant here is. It’s also why I stopped responding if your not going to put any effort why should I?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:A new immersive sim where you play as Pyotr Stolypin. Sneak through the Tsar's palace and Imperial Ministries to enact policies the will strengthen the Russian Empire and secure the loyalty of the russian people to their Tsar, while skillfully avoiding getting fired by the Tsar or shot by SR revolutionaries & Tsarist Secret Policemen. Features mild horror elements as you are stalked by both Dimitry Bogrov--who wants to kill you in the name of both the Tsar and Socialism, depending on who you ask--and a crippling depression brought on by the realisation that your efforts to save an autocrat will be roundly rejected by that autocrat, who is a bumbling, gullible and arrogant fool that for some utterly insane reason you still feel loyalty to. Also Rasputin will constantly talk poo poo about you and the final boss fight is a conversation battle with him
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
fuf posted:I dunno I kind of like the idea of slightly vague newspaper headlines or alerts that are like "uh oh looks like Russia is building a big fleet" Honestly, I don't mind this kind of notification if it's in addition to actually being able to look stuff up. It was not difficult for a power to know what another power's navy looked like in pretty good detail anyway. I'd probably turn off 'newspapers' if it was an option but if you take away my ledger and make me stare at headlines, i'd probably not enjoy it. Raenir Salazar posted:I'm not sure if it is inherently bad for the game to "slow down" a big problem for me in stellaris is just how fast the tech and snowballing can be. For a game with vicky which presupposes mostly established polities; there's no reason why the gameplay should be particularly fast until the end game where the technological progress has exceeded mankinds ability to reconcile all of its knowledge, forcing the mind to flee into a comforting new dark age. If the problem is that things happen too quickly, it's a lot easier to make direct adjustments rather than adding an order delay in a game like this. It just adds a bunch of frustration to make the game more obtuse and opaque in order to 'slow things down'. It's not slowing the game down as in making things take longer, so much as it to me is like slowing the game down by forcing you to play with a very low mouse sensitivity. For example, Total War was significantly improved when instead of having to move a diplomat to another country's capital to do any kind of negotiation, you could just open a diplomacy screen and click on them and negotiate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Just because you say there is cohesion doesn’t meant here is. It’s also why I stopped responding if your not going to put any effort why should I? I made plenty of effort in explaining my ideas, you never actually elaborated on your criticisms when asked or provided substance. It seemed more like when I pointed out that I don't think its relevant what the authorial intent of the developers is and asked you to explain what "pushing forward the design" actually meant without resorting to that you refused to answer. e to add: Like Panzeh is actually engaging with the actual mechanics behind the ideas in the post above and how they might interact with the player's gameloop and is an actually interesting discussion I have to sit down and thunk about because its a debate between convenience vs engagement; while you just saying "that sounds like a bad idea" without elaborating why isn't effort. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jun 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
fuf posted:I dunno I kind of like the idea of slightly vague newspaper headlines or alerts that are like "uh oh looks like Russia is building a big fleet"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Y'all need to play Suzerain. See I played the demo of that but never took the plunge on the full version. Worth it you think?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
Suzerain is very fun and watching the bougie newspaper headlines howl about you dooming the economy while going full communism and then winning anyways feels so satisfying
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:These threads do tend to be 'wow this sounds cool' without really thinking things through. The paradox forums are much, much worse though, and they're freaking out over the laissez faire change making it not as stupid in the gameplay sense. Don't worry, once the dev diaries start talking about how different government types work and give details of the map/pop situation at the start of the game, this thread will smoothly transition from arguing about hypothetical game mechanics to arguing about whether anarcho-syndicalism is being simulated with the correct number of committees. Someone will have a meltdown about how literate Roma pops should be, or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Serpentis posted:See I played the demo of that but never took the plunge on the full version. Worth it you think? Suzerain rules
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Yeah, and I'd rather have Radio Commander and Radio General then yet another hex and counter wargame. It's largely a moot point with Vicky because this is a very different beast, but Imperator was just another EU4 (well, an EU:Rome) and nobody liked that. IMO the military campaign system in Paradox games (but especially Vicky) badly needs abstracting. On top of not really simulating anything real, playing army ping-pong is extremely tedious and I don't think anyone enjoys it. I'd like to see them steal the system from Cauldron of War where you assign armies to abstracted fronts and assign them postures while all the combat happens essentially behind the scenes. So wartime could be simulated by (say) assigning X of your forces to defending from the Italians, Y to to attacking the Serbians and Z to attacking the Russians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 01:25
|
|
|
sum posted:On top of not really simulating anything real, playing army ping-pong is extremely tedious and I don't think anyone enjoys it. Yeah, this is obnoxious and only exists because of perfect knowledge and perfect command and control. There's no reason armies should be able to evade each other the way that they do in all of Paradox's games except HOI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Yeah, this is obnoxious and only exists because of perfect knowledge and perfect command and control. There's no reason armies should be able to evade each other the way that they do in all of Paradox's games except HOI. the romans did it against hannibal for literally years. walking your dudes around and letting attrition bleed the enemy absolutely was a part of pre-modern war, and it is actually really hard to hide an army's movements under most circumstances. skirmishes (represented by the minimum attrition you always take in enemy territory) and sieges were generally the really important part of warfare, not the field battles, although there are exceptions. i would not want to just throw numbers into a theater and watch the AI fight wars in a pre-modern game. it might be okay in vicky tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
Yeah for pre-industrial games I think more detailed control of the armies is appropriate but the current system of just herding them around provinces still isn't great. Neither here nor there I guess though
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:the romans did it against hannibal for literally years. walking your dudes around and letting attrition bleed the enemy absolutely was a part of pre-modern war, and it is actually really hard to hide an army's movements under most circumstances. the fabian strategy involved an army composed of troops specialized in skirmishing, fighting in favorable terrain and favorable supply, under the command of a notably cunning general. it should not be the default for all warfare everywhere forever, from 867 to 1936. these games would be a lot more interesting if you had to cultivate a general on par with fabius maximus as well as a force as disciplined as the roman republic's to generally create the circumstances to fight like this, rather than it being the default state (and a huge micromanagement hassle that the AI will always be better at). Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jun 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
He has a point though, in that it was generally quite difficult to bring an army to battle unless they wanted to fight. The problem is that the games do a bad job of modelling the reasons army commanders would want to risk a battle (which usually involves a lot of missing information), just how risky battles be, or the profound damage a badly lost battle could inflict on a pre-modern state in particular. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Jun 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 07:40
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
That's akin to FPS games hiding the fact that perfect aim is not a trivial thing. You're talking about the level of detail you might see in an AGEOD game, and those games have very precise focus. Those are operational level games, so you have very little influence on strategic things (diplomacy, recruitment, buildings can only be influenced indirectly) and battles themselves are similated with a level of complexity not much higher than Paradox games. So there are games focused just on menuever, smoke and mirrors and choosing battles - and those games are still very complex and hard to understand. If you want something like that on a world scale and in Victorian era and with economy you might look at Pride of Nations! But you shouldn't
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 10:06
|
|
|
Yeah, PoN had some interesting ideas, but they never really came together. For example, the idea of separating private capital and state funds a separate resource pools is actually a pretty good abstraction that lets you guide the country without making finance a total farce. Unfortunately AGEOD picked such a complex game that it was never going to work. I'm actually in favor of a greater level of abstraction in warfare for Vicky 3, especially if it can be handled in such a way as to actually make the navy more important for more than just prestige. Big provinces where you send in the troops and there's just a big 'campaign' box like a battle from eu4 but a lot slower, especially depending on the situation and the techs, and in the meantime you see the little sub-provinces change hands here and there. It's one of those blind spots of abstraction, though, probably because people are less willing to accept it. People who play Civilization, for example, accept the abstraction of 'hammers' but need to see their troops as 'swordsmen' and 'pikemen' which is kind of a weird mismatch. And as a side note, i'd love to see an Imperialism III as those games were awesome, even if they weren't trying to hit what vicky 3 was doing. It was always really nice to see a game where naval superiority was super critical. Imperialism used the abstraction that all international trade was sea trade and international trade was the only way to really run massive industry and make money on the side to make falling behind on the naval race horrible since if you went to war and got choked off, you'd be done, but if you tried to create an autarky and keep making money off of say gold/gems you'd fall way behind the AI in production of things like steel and arms and lose to a land invasion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 11:48
|
|
|
We know the game has a lot of teeny tiny provinces, and we also know that pop / production / buildings all happen at the state level, so presumably those provinces are there in large part to be used by the military system? So I doubt the military system is going to be as abstract as some of us would like. At best it might be about drawing sweeping front lines and arrows like HOI4, but at worst it could be the same old paradox ping pong, whack-a-mole, tedious war fighting that we all love to hate. I think it's gonna be a real challenge for the devs to come up with something that can model small scale 19th Century battles as well as 20th Century wars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 12:16
|
|
|
I have little hope that the game will successfully portray warfare from basically Napoleonics to 20th century which can feature both trench war and gurilla fighting. I can imagine them making "battles" continue for months in late game simulating trench warfare at the specific level of technology and industrial capacity. But it will look strange if it means that you have millions of troops engaged in some minor settlement in a middle of France.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 14:05
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I have little hope that the game will successfully portray warfare from basically Napoleonics to 20th century which can feature both trench war and gurilla fighting. Vicky 2 got around that bit fairly well by reducing combat width as your army tech improved, forcing you to spread your troops out if you wanted to accomplish much in the late game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 14:09
|
|
|
Doomstacking essentially remains a thing all the way until about late game Victoria 2 and its always been a pain. I have partly EU4 in mind with my earlier suggestion where things are just kinda dumb, where I have to drop everything to pay super close attention to see if the enemy doomstack is about to threaten one of my stacks that I have to separate and spread out because I don't have the manpower to also doomstack and because of modifier stacking if I don't have 3 to 1 odds on a defencive battle ontop of a mountain fort with the right 6-6-6 general I'll lose the battle. The sort of ultimate goto example there of the problems with the way some paradox games kinda just overload your brain and your ability to multitask with a spreadsheet's worth of information. The fort system, the attrition and so on in EU all seem to be trying to mimic Hoi4 without actually being Hoi4 and its just one bandaid over another that creates warfare that feels like you're fighting World War One style trench warfare hundreds of years early where you have 1 million people dead in a single battle as half of Europe puts their troops into a single battle. V2 warfare is a bit annoying because you have the ping ponging which causes micro and micro and the accomanying wrist pain is something I'm too old for but it also kinda forces you to try to keep your troops spread out if you don't want a single cavalry stack capturing all your provinces behind the lines; so you have this sort of transition between early game Vicky to late game Vicky once your army is large enough to maintain something akin to a front line and gallipole style landings kinda make sense when you got a front line where nothing much is happening. I think the suggestion about putting a bunch of troops in a box and saying "go get im'!" has its problems too. I think it's a bit too close to how airwarfare works in Hoi4 currently and has been by my observation a source of complaints. Sometimes I think Hoi4 airwarfare would've been better if you had the box but then saw individual groupings of air units flying automatically around the map and actually engaging each other in combat similar to land units instead of just being one giant number against another giant number. If think if you had Hoi4 style "air theaters" but for land armies, it could work, but I think it needs to do more interesting things and the player needs more things they can do to affect things and it shouldn't be just be two sets of abstract numbers lined up against each other; and there needs to be something that changes how they interact to represent the progression from early post napoleonic warfare to WW1. Where earlier on its more about smaller armies trying to manneuver except for specific locations which became drawn out sieges like Sevastopol, Port Arthur, and I wanna say Richmond? But later on the dangers of being outflanked result in more armies being positioned on the flanks and field fortifications being erected; but again depending on the terrain and sizes of the fronts. Since in Russia the same sort of trench warfare didn't occur as it did in the West.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
I think a part of what makes battles so annoying in some Paradox games is that it does come down to a lot of modifier stacking, at which point you have to throw on the random modifier of leader quality (and in some cases rapid variation in weather). You can go and spend resources on generating a leader, and they come out terrible anyway, especially against a buffed AI. This is in my opinion quite "unfun" because you've realised at that moment that you've lost the war (for the example assume diplomacy has been exhausted), but you have to go out and fight it anyway. It gives an illusion of realism due to all the examples in history of inept officers ending up leading large forces, but its because of a dice roll and not reflective of deeper mechanics reflecting the capacity of the state. I admit ignorance here, I do not know to what degree this has been improved in EU4 as I no longer play it - but Vicky 3 should offer some sort of mechanic that guarantees removing rolls at the moment of generating leaders. It should be expensive and time-consuming to develop, perhaps some sort of institution modeled on army/navy staff colleges and wargaming. It would need to require a lot of effort, and contemplate degrees of "professionalization" linked to state capacity etc. It should not be viable in the early game at all. Unrecognised and weak recognised countries should not be able to successfully implement it (but could roll a genius general randomly anyway). Regarding the talk of "boxes" or of "combat arenas" etc, I don't see it as so ridiculous. Firstly provinces are "battle boxes" anyway. Secondly, as warfare becomes more complex and fully industrialized, logistics becomes even harder than before. At the start of the Vicky timeframe, its not hard to recognise that certain areas only have certain approaches, and when compounded with local infrastructure usually means that maneuver is in reality quite limited. Obviously there is a difference between an area like the Central European plain, which could have smaller "battle boxes" than the Brazilian Planalto. "Individual" combat between units could still happen within these areas. Someone up-thread mentioned Cauldrons of War, a great little game that has quite a few issues, but the concept of front warfare it utilises is very neat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Didn't they say vicky 3 would have about as many ticks as eu4? Does that mean it's gonna represent multiple sections of a day like march of the eagles did?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Iirc it's 4 ticks a day
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Dumping armies into an abstract front and hoping you win the war sounds boring as gently caress and I hope paradox ignores all such suggestions
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:I think a part of what makes battles so annoying in some Paradox games is that it does come down to a lot of modifier stacking, at which point you have to throw on the random modifier of leader quality (and in some cases rapid variation in weather). I think the issue is with provinces at least there's a illusion that you're doing maneuver war; except maneuver war in games like EU4 comes down to chasing down armies that are broken, or eating stacks that the other player inattentively didn't get the chance to move out of the way because they are dealing with pop ups and lag. The games generally enshrine the idea of the Decisive Battle as fact and it takes somewhat rare circumstances for proper napoleonic manneuver war to be a thing. Most of the time its about retreating behind your forts, building up and reorganizing, and see who baits who into a disadvantageous battle first or makes a mistake with titantic armies lunging about (this was partly made worse by the mod my game was using but mostly all the elements are there in base EU4). But the illusion is there, with some degree or substance, you do have especially in the early game moment to moment warfare of trying to get around the enemy, trying to get into advantageous positions, moving stacks around so they can all converge at the right time. But there's also a lot of flaws and it becomes increasingly frustrating as the game drags on as it seems to come down less about skill and more about stacking modifiers or spending enough mana for things like streltsy stacks. But at the end of the day you have the fact you can see and select an army or more in one province, and march them into battle into another, and the situation in the surrounding provinces seems to matter except they currently don't all that much. Shattered retreat means there's no real need to maintain a rear guard or reserve; everyone can just throw their entire army into the battle, instead of it being a sequence of battles between point A to point B between waves of echelons. Armies don't support each other like in Hoi4, so there's no real reason not to stack them as large as you can except for attrition; which is also a somewhat strange and counterintuitive mechanic as in real life while armies did lose a significant number of troops to attrition it wasn't at a constant rate and usually more to do with how far away they were from developed areas and supply; but EU4 and Vicky basically treat every army as if its marching in Russia in winter. Speaking of, there's no real supply lines as far as I can tell; which is what really should be the determining factor for army tradition; there is no real reason in EU4 or Vicky to worry about armies behind yours except for whether they'll join up for the final battle and whether they'll take more than a token number of province which might affect your "numbers". For the entire period from EU4 to Hoi4 there are appropriate times for smaller disciplined, well trained or well equipped armies to outmaneuver or outmatch larger armies. Victor Suvorov, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon weren't just outfighting by better unit/line tactics and other innovations but were able to frequently out maneuver their enemies or move in such ways that it prevented their movements and prevented or forced certain battles to happen or not happen. I think partly what could better model what you're thinking of is something where the size of the maneuver map changed its density to account for the size of the armies and the logistics and technology involved. Manneuver would be way more important if supply was properly a thing, and also prevent European nations from just face stomping the rest of the world as well. Like maybe as an example there's your combat army (for the EU4 and early Vicky era) and your wagon train which has to be some distance near your army to keep it supplied, you can detach them to try some deep strikes and live off the land a bit to try to out maneuver the enemy but you also risk your army disintegrating if its out there too long and at some point you need your wagon train to catch up. In Vicky this wagon train slowly morphs into railroad and truck based logistics as armies lose the ability to truly operate past their supply lines except for very short mechanized bursts. You need to defend this wagon train or risk your enemy gaining a bunch of free supplies and loot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Dumping armies into an abstract front and hoping you win the war sounds boring as gently caress and I hope paradox ignores all such suggestions I wouldn’t worry it will probably play like all paradox games save HOI
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Reading Guns of August right now and that's a real good theme for the late game war mechanics, you have to make plans on top of plans for years in advance to have any chance of marshalling the huge armies around effectively. Then when you actually get to the war and woops the enemy didn't do what you planned for / you can't beat entrenched positions with the power of elan, uuuuuuh do the plan anyway, tough poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 20:50
|
|