Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Megathread : Military Aspects of Victoria 2

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Victoria 2 17560 After Action Reports (AAR)
After hearing several contributors remark that they don't recruit cavalry or dragoons because of their perceived uselessness, I will make a suggestion that may be a bit impopular:

I think information on non-allied and enemy units should be reduced, even when they fight on your territory. Information in those days didn't travel that fast and intelligence on enemy forces had to be gathered through reconnaissance by cavalry and dragoon units (look at the role of J.E.B. Stuart and Buford on the CSA and USA sides in the ACW and that of Matvei Platov and his Don Cossacks for Russia in the Napoleonic Wars). It would add another dimension to cavalry warfare. Of course 'information distortion' should be less on home soil as the sympathetic local population will report enemy movements to your forces and the distortion should also be much less in areas with good infrastructure (where telegraph lines are present which can relay information to troops). But information mustn't be entirely up to date. Having your own troops closer to the enemy will make information on their units more readily available. As technology increases, information distortion; particularly on your own territory, should be further reduced.

Hopefully these information distortions will make swift cavalry more valuable as scouts so that it will be more lucrative to recruit cavalry units. It would also make losing cavalry units in battle much worse as it causes armies to advance in enemy territory virtually blind. General Robert E. Lee was at a considerable disadvantage because of J.E.B. Stuart's late arrival at Gettysburg. He had to fight without his 'eyes and ears' for a full day.

Other things concerning cavalry that could be expanded upon in Vicky 2 is raiding of supply lines, skirmishing, flanking and screening friendly forces and power projection in steppe areas like the Great Plains and Patagonia.

One final point I wish to make, completely unrelated to my previous comments on cavalry, is that the role of railroads in warfare must be reconsidered by Paradox (extensively used by the Prussians in 1870 against France)
 
Last edited:
Aw, heck! Don't go paying no attention to them thar cavalry deniers. We'uns know how dad-blasted useful they can be when managing a humongous territory that covers half a hot-dang continent.;)
 
I wonder if we will be seeing increased types of units in Vicky2? Id also like to see the regiment/brigade as the smallest infantry unit- firstly because the regiments of the period often had colourful unique names rather than the boring old '1st Infantry Division' etc etc and second because its a tad more realistic.

Of course, be able to place these regiments into divisions as per HOI3- but keep the regiment as the smallest movement/single unit.

As for unit types...what does the forum think?
Infantry (regular, colonial, native), cav & dragoons as per vicky1?

Id like to see some variation in additional brigades...perhaps choices in artillery for example, light, heavy, horse etc

Any other suggestions?
 
1) Whilst I sympathise with the people who think that move=attack is not a good system for modelling early battles, it makes much more sense to have a move=attack American Civil War than it does to have a Vicky 1-style WW1. The stupidity of having your soldiers carry out the offensive on the Somme and take days to encounter the enemy, and then days more to reach their lines again having failed in their attack, is simply unbearable.

Perhaps a solution could be found in having 'combat' start as soon as the units are ordered to advance into an enemy province, but where actual loss-making combat only happens during discrete battle events during the advance. The likelihood of such events could increase throughout the game so that they happen constantly once the WW1 era is reached.

2) Vicky 2 could most definitely benefit from differing unit types, even if only to show the differing uniforms and pageantry of each nation and the peoples that they control (i.e., Polish Lancers, French Zoaves, US Marines, Russian Cossacks, British Ghurkas etc.). Say 5-6 types for each nation.

3) Part of the reason why many countries in Vicky 1 would build a-historically huge armies was due to the need for hundreds of 10,000 man strong divisions to control colonial territories (and to guard against the risk that these soldiers would randomly rebel). Smaller-strength units, or some way of abstracting this functions, are necessary to avoid this kind of excess. The brigades system is a good way of achieving this.

4) Generals should be historical where possible, and randomly produced where not. I am not expecting Paradox to research every General employed by the Austro-Hungarian Army from 1835-1918 and source a picture of them, but the most famous (or infamous) generals of the period should definitely be there.

5) Re-enforcement should be automatic. This is a must.

6) Naval battles should be more complex, with more options, and obsolete warships should not clutter up the game as they did in Vicky 1. This perhaps could be achieved by making warships automatically obsolete once technology reaches a certain level- hence sail-ships should become obsolete a certain time after the nation in question launches its first steam-ship.

7) Independent air forces did exist in the Vicky time-frame (the RAF was formed in 1918, and carried out strategic air attacks in the last year of the war), and independent air units should definitely be part of the latter game. Same with armoured units. At the same time these units started life as auxiliary units - and so they should in the game too.

8) Vicky spans the era where warfare changed from an affair where battles would last hours to one in which they would last months. The game has to reflect that. So whilst the micro-management should be there for early in the game, and for small wars and small nations, once warfare turns industrial the players experience should become so as well.

Seriously, yes Vicky 2 =/= HOI3, but it also should not just be a re-hashing of the amazingly-flawed-but-brilliant Vicky 1.
 
Reinforcements must NOT be automated, if you only have 20 manpower you dont want that going to soldiers on the otherside of the map from your front lines. possibly a box for each army to automatically reinforce that one army.
And the suggestion in the post above to automatically obselete warships once enough technology has passed would also be tragic to see in the game, maybe there could be an option in the ledger to decommission or sell off all of a certain model of warship. But for poorer nations to lose your ships for something so arbitary as the new devolopments in the field would set you back drastically.
Cavalry are vital, to both the era and the game, as i usually avoided wars whenever I could in Victoria id only have cavalry as the speed is required in getting the rebels before they take the hill.
Aeroplanes and Ballons played a very important party in reconosance in the era, an Airforce should be included in the game, possibly as auxrillary units which gives better reactions to the troops its alongside or something of that kettle. Not planes firing on soldiers, but flying over enemy lines and taking photos of lines and fortifications.
FInally from HoI III for the military to have the option of automation would be a godsend.
 
Orinsul said:
Reinforcements must NOT be automated, if you only have 20 manpower you dont want that going to soldiers on the otherside of the map from your front lines. possibly a box for each army to automatically reinforce that one army.
Click to expand...

Yes, because there's nothing so enjoyable as sorting through the 50-60 formations you have just used in a grand offensive on the western front and reinforcing every one of them. A more nuanced reinforcement system? I can't for the life of me think why you would want this. If you do not have enough manpower, raise more, and if you no longer have enough able-bodied men to make up your losses then you might as well accept that you have lost the war and should try and get the best terms you can. In peacetime units should be maintained at their authorised strength. The exploit used by some players in Vicky 1 of lowering maintenance thus reducing the size of divisions by killing the men left unsupported (the men were not returned to the soldier pop., so you can only presume that they died) was silly in the extreme.
 
FOARP said:
The exploit used by some players in Vicky 1 of lowering maintenance thus reducing the size of divisions by killing the men left unsupported (the men were not returned to the soldier pop., so you can only presume that they died) was silly in the extreme.
Click to expand...

That wasn't how it worked - manpower didn't take away population from soldiers pops, it was when divisions with the same culture as the soldier pop lost soldiers in battle that the soldier pop would lose numbers.
 
Andrelvis said:
That wasn't how it worked - manpower didn't take away population from soldiers pops, it was when divisions with the same culture as the soldier pop lost soldiers in battle that the soldier pop would lose numbers.
Click to expand...

I mean didn't return to the Manpower pool. Sorry.
 
Just think check box options. I'm a big fan of 'em.
 
FOARP said:
1) Whilst I sympathise with the people who think that move=attack is not a good system for modelling early battles, it makes much more sense to have a move=attack American Civil War than it does to have a Vicky 1-style WW1. The stupidity of having your soldiers carry out the offensive on the Somme and take days to encounter the enemy, and then days more to reach their lines again having failed in their attack, is simply unbearable.

Perhaps a solution could be found in having 'combat' start as soon as the units are ordered to advance into an enemy province, but where actual loss-making combat only happens during discrete battle events during the advance. The likelihood of such events could increase throughout the game so that they happen constantly once the WW1 era is reached.

2) Vicky 2 could most definitely benefit from differing unit types, even if only to show the differing uniforms and pageantry of each nation and the peoples that they control (i.e., Polish Lancers, French Zoaves, US Marines, Russian Cossacks, British Ghurkas etc.). Say 5-6 types for each nation.

3) Part of the reason why many countries in Vicky 1 would build a-historically huge armies was due to the need for hundreds of 10,000 man strong divisions to control colonial territories (and to guard against the risk that these soldiers would randomly rebel). Smaller-strength units, or some way of abstracting this functions, are necessary to avoid this kind of excess. The brigades system is a good way of achieving this.

4) Generals should be historical where possible, and randomly produced where not. I am not expecting Paradox to research every General employed by the Austro-Hungarian Army from 1835-1918 and source a picture of them, but the most famous (or infamous) generals of the period should definitely be there.

5) Re-enforcement should be automatic. This is a must.

6) Naval battles should be more complex, with more options, and obsolete warships should not clutter up the game as they did in Vicky 1. This perhaps could be achieved by making warships automatically obsolete once technology reaches a certain level- hence sail-ships should become obsolete a certain time after the nation in question launches its first steam-ship.

7) Independent air forces did exist in the Vicky time-frame (the RAF was formed in 1918, and carried out strategic air attacks in the last year of the war), and independent air units should definitely be part of the latter game. Same with armoured units. At the same time these units started life as auxiliary units - and so they should in the game too.

8) Vicky spans the era where warfare changed from an affair where battles would last hours to one in which they would last months. The game has to reflect that. So whilst the micro-management should be there for early in the game, and for small wars and small nations, once warfare turns industrial the players experience should become so as well.

Seriously, yes Vicky 2 =/= HOI3, but it also should not just be a re-hashing of the amazingly-flawed-but-brilliant Vicky 1.
Click to expand...

I generally agree. But:

2) Flavour in military units would probably be better done from an EU3/HoI3 hybrid system where generic units (eg infantry, cavalry) are localised, based on a combination of the country and inventions. I don't think the number of discrete unit types from HoI are needed, let alone discrete Polish Lancers, French Zoaves, US Marines, Russian Cossacks, British Ghurkas... But I also don't think inf/cav/art would cut it. A compromise would be good for conversion, too. I'd still go with my earlier proposal, with three brigade infantry or cavalry divisions able to have a fourth supporting brigade. Simple, effective, and room for flavour to be worked in.

5) Reinforcement should be automatic, but with the capacity for your intervention/control-freakery. HoI2 did this fine, I'm not familiar enough with 3 to know how it does it. You should at least be able to prioritise units and block reinforcements for others. Check box options are great :) Even though it feels so weird to say "check box". They're ticks ;)

6) I don't really see what current problem there is with ships becoming obsolete... sail ships get slaughtered by commerce raiders, and so on up the chain. You can't build old ships when you build new ships. If there's a problem, it's that AI nations are too quick to scrap old ships, leaving themselves vulnerable. A gradual phase in of new ships should be the aim - pre-dreadnoughts were still around long after 1906, however outclassed they were. Countries could only build so many ships at a time, and a gradual phase in would better reflect the gradual improvement in design.
 
I dunno, maybe nation specific units might be a bit much- I could certainly live with it but it doesnt seem to be Paradox's style, thats for sure.

I definately want to see regimental names added in, it would really help to immerse a player in the period, especially when creating famous guards units or whatever. Light infantry would also be good to see as a seperate unit type. More unit types in general would satisfy me, as well as the aforementioned regiment level play.

Vicky AI was certainly much better at scrapping obsolete ships than HOI2 ever was. The only issue was places like China still building sail vessels late game because they wernt teched enough to do anything else, when in reality, these states simply purchased vessels- a system that Id like to see in Vicky2. This was a pretty big aspect of the 19th Century and should be represented somehow...
 
Capt. Kiwi said:
I generally agree. But:

2) Flavour in military units would probably be better done from an EU3/HoI3 hybrid system where generic units (eg infantry, cavalry) are localised, based on a combination of the country and inventions. I don't think the number of discrete unit types from HoI are needed, let alone discrete Polish Lancers, French Zoaves, US Marines, Russian Cossacks, British Ghurkas... But I also don't think inf/cav/art would cut it. A compromise would be good for conversion, too. I'd still go with my earlier proposal, with three brigade infantry or cavalry divisions able to have a fourth supporting brigade. Simple, effective, and room for flavour to be worked in.
Click to expand...

I liked the EU3 system.

HMS Enterprize said:
Vicky AI was certainly much better at scrapping obsolete ships than HOI2 ever was. The only issue was places like China still building sail vessels late game because they wernt teched enough to do anything else, when in reality, these states simply purchased vessels- a system that Id like to see in Vicky2. This was a pretty big aspect of the 19th Century and should be represented somehow...
Click to expand...

Agreed - IIRC most of the Japanese fleet up until around 1920(?) was British built. IIRC the Brits also built a lot of ships for other countries too - post Ottoman Turkey included.
 
I was thinking it would be a good idea for a HoI supply system for navies. I'm studying British strategy 1815-1856 at university and it was pointed to me how important the bases of Gibraltar, Malta and the Ionian islands were to British strategy in the Mediterranean, however in Vicky 1 the importance of these bases is non-existent. If you made it harder to send your fleets around and made bases and supply stations more important you can have a truly accurate system.Technology and diplomacy can also have a role, like the better technology for your ships etc you have the further they can travel and also politics, for example the American Mediterranean fleet was stationed in the Balearic islands, you could make pacts with other nations allowing certain province-ports to be used by your nations navy as a base. Obviously during wartime this could have an effect on all the nations relations with each other.

On another note, perhaps the fact you have a fleet of ships stationed off the enemy coast somewhere could have implications for dealings with them, like trade etc.

Also i think something has to be done to make the Submarines a bit more useful in-game. The option to blockade countries that you are at war with or have really bad relations with or have 'disputes' with etc. (This would be throughout though, as you could blockade before subs)

Edit: I also like the idea mentioned above about the selling and buying of ships to countries. That would be interesting and accurate for the time as well.
 
Didn't EU3 have a naval base function, where you had to have a naval base to expand your empire into Africa and the Americas?
 
I hope that this wasn't mentioned in this thread somewhere, but I would really like to see a different military combat system in Victoria 2.

One of the things I really found quite bad in Victoria was the fight to the death armies. I mean they did retreat, but that only happened if you ordered to retreat, most of the time with good morale the battle would continue until one of the armies was reduced to zero strength or you called off the attack yourself. This meant that you needed to babysit all your attacks.

I hope that Victoria 2 will support a more HoI3 organisation like system which means that most armies are not completely destroyed if they go on with the attack, but rather forced to retreat due to low morale/organisation. With the new map that is inspired on HoI3 and probably a lot more provinces, this really is necessary.

Also I hope that reinforcements cannot be replenished as quickly (or instantly) as in Victoria, but should be more like EUIII or HoI3. This will make the military aspect a lot more difficult of course, but also a lot more realistic.
 
One has to ask why the Vicky 1 division system was created in the first place (because obviously everyone agrees that a smaller unit size is much more desirable, for countless reasons already stated)? I assume it's exactly because of the game concept, that being a social and economic simulator PRIMARILY. A division had its stats, multiple divisions had their stats accumulated, a battle of opposing stacks of divisions had their stats battle it out by a simple formula, and that was a sufficient level of complication the game was interested to incorporate into its software, minding the game concept. A basic unit size is the primary element of the formula, a smaller unit size (via attrition or whatever) manifests as a smaller percentage or subtracts from the main value, a brigade-enhanced unit adds on the main value blabla...

In light of this, I'm not sure that Paradox will be interested to expand on this, as I understand Vicky 2, its development is focused primarily on improving the game mechanics rather than the concept (the previously stated issue of the "military mechanism/formula" is rather a question of concept than mechanics in my opinion, and in the context of this post). I realize that some might view it as a minor adjustment, but there are people who think that this might prove a bigger challenge than anticipated, considering that there are other issues that require CPU attention (the political system being my personal favorite). I'm joining the latter group.

IF it is possible (performance-wise), I would like the the additional complication of splitting huge military formations into smaller ones (in this I support the suggestion of a 1 division:3 regiments proposal etc...).

If not, I suggest a simple decrease in numbers, Making the basic unit (regiment) 2000 man strong, with an additional 500 per specialized brigade, 4 regiments=1 division etc, you've said it all...

That's about the biggest complication to the unit size system I'd like to see in V2.

Well that and huge and realistic portraits of the generals (you know, the decorated "greatest son of the Empire" aristocrat sitting by the fireplace with a gun and 3 hunting dogs), not the low-tech icons we've seen so far. Considering the 19th century, the generals were the superstars of the day, and most histories from the period deal heavily with the character of military commanders as an important issue to understand the times as well as important turns of events brought on by them. Also, baring in mind of the time-frame of the game, it's probable that you'll get to know your few top generals intimately until the game is finished. ;) Taking care of the graphics, I support any and all complication adding to the generals' stats, traits, skills, history, political preferences, marital status, whatever, details are welcome :D... This rambling is secondary to the first part of my post, obviously :D
 
Don't know if this has been discussed (thread is too long), but one shouldn't be able to support 100+ Dreadnoughts, even as one of the Great Powers. I played a game as a Greater Germany (Imperial Germany + German speaking Austria) where I was in a naval race with the United Kingdom. Each of the easily had 60 Dreadnoughts and I managed to overwhelm them with another 40 or so. All kept on 100% military spending. I doubt there were even 100 dreadnoughts in service worldwide at one time.

While land unit maintenance seemed about right to me (I couldn't mobilize my entire 200+ divisions without going heavily in the red), naval construction and maintenance costs seemed quite under-valued.
 
newtype0083 said:
Don't know if this has been discussed (thread is too long), but one shouldn't be able to support 100+ Dreadnoughts, even as one of the Great Powers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, as well known, the whole combat system needs an overhaul (which Im sure it will get). The vicky system is simply too primative, ie- ships blasting away until one side's fleet is sunk. Even HOI2 level 'complexity' in a vicky combat system would be more than adequate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back