Megathread : Military Aspects of Victoria 2

[byzantium43]

I don't see why people think it would be that much more complicated. I'm not suggesting HOI3 style command chains, or military missions, just a more flexible unit, for garrisoning and conquering large swaths of territory.

[extox]

Just allow divisions to default to 10k but allow you to split them further if you wish... ie Either with a europa style 1k at a time or(my favorite) into 4 quarters with the click of a button. Then merge as you please. Not all that important but really how hard is it to add a button to break up a divison to more meaningfull sizes.

For those who say managing 1000's of brigades would be a pain i agree. Thats what the merge is for. I mean you still merge divisions into stacks. I rarely use single divisions for anything other then garrison.


It really depends on if the basic default unit size of troops is static at 10k, if so then there is no incentive to break up units into smaller portions as rebels will pop up as 10k and kill your meager troops.

[byzantium43]

It really depends on if the basic default unit size of troops is static at 10k, if so then there is no incentive to break up units into smaller portions as rebels will pop up as 10k and kill your meager troops.

There should be different 'types' of rebels as well. Size and skill should be determined by classifications, such as Metropolitan European, Met Indian, Native (Oceana and Americas), Rural African, Metro African.

Metro European would be full fledged revolutions so 10k skilled divisions would make sense, Native revolts would make more sense if they were brigade sized irregulars.

I know this is getting to militaristic, but rebel classifications could also have impact on the political arena just like in EU3 IN (or NA, not sure which) where there are different rebels and you can negotiate with them.

[wilhelm cochise]

In this time period most countries used regiments not brigades I think.

[JeanNYGUARD]

Honestly... I like the idea of Brigades. I like the Freedom of making them according to my specifications. The only thing is in the 19th Century there wasnt too much customization of divisions. You either had a Infantry or Cavalry Division, with a art attachment.

[Cinéad IV]

I'd love the idea of having divisions and brigades separate. It would bring a whole new level of flexibility to the conduct of warfare in Vicky.

[byzantium43]

In this time period most countries used regiments not brigades I think.

The words can be used interchangeably. At least after the reforms of 1881 the British used brigades. Regiments were the administrative unit and the manifestation of unit tradition, and cohesiveness, but Brigades were the combat element, generally being 3 battalions of 3 different regiments.

[Gwalcmai]

Honestly... I like the idea of Brigades. I like the Freedom of making them according to my specifications. The only thing is in the 19th Century there wasnt too much customization of divisions. You either had a Infantry or Cavalry Division, with a art attachment.

For most of the 19th century, "divisions" were things you created on the fly from the brigades/regiments you intended to use in the campaign and the sort of organisation you were going to give the army you were employing. You'd have divisions, "light" divisions, cavalry divisions... depended on which troops you threw into them.

You only get a division as a sort of permanent fixture in regular armies after the Boer War.

[byzantium43]

For most of the 19th century, "divisions" were things you created on the fly from the brigades/regiments you intended to use in the campaign and the sort of organisation you were going to give the army you were employing. You'd have divisions, "light" divisions, cavalry divisions... depended on which troops you threw into them.

You only get a division as a sort of permanent fixture in regular armies after the Boer War.

Yeah!

I learned that from the hours I spent poring over this OOB:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1882_Anglo-Egyptian_War

It's always so damn hard to find good stuff about 19th century stuff, besides Victorian England social dynamics.


Ontopic: I don't think that historical system would necessarily make sense from a game play standpoint, but I think detachable brigades are a nice compromise.

[wilhelm cochise]

The words can be used interchangeably. At least after the reforms of 1881 the British used brigades. Regiments were the administrative unit and the manifestation of unit tradition, and cohesiveness, but Brigades were the combat element, generally being 3 battalions of 3 different regiments.

That's true. But IIRC there were brigades only in british, US and french (?) armies (speaking of major powers). Others had regiments only. So that's why regiment is a little more appropriate in my opinion.

[hellfish6]

I'd kind of prefer the EUIII regimental/army system. Most armies, until WWI, used a regimental system and divisions were temporary groupings.

Though I've been away from reading Victorian-era military history for a few years now, I seem to recall that regiments were the basic military administrative units, basic maneuver units and source of much pride for just about all the nations of the world.

Indeed, it was WWI that effectively destroyed the regimental system, at least in the British army, because entire regiments could be wiped out in a single battle.

[MacroEconomics]

The brigade/divisional design system in HoI3 is mega-fun, super detailed and unfortunately also a contributing reason as to why that game seriously overspent its CPU budget. Given the even greater detail that Victoria will have on the economic/demographic side compared to HoI3, more than a few items must be jettisoned if V2 is going to have any chance at all of running smoother than HoI3. And that, frankly is a must for the game to be successful. So unless Pdox solves its inability to get a lot of functionality out the 2nd CPU core, I'd have to say that HoI3 style military unit customization needs to be abandoned.

[Syber]

Please no, don't make VIC 2 HOI 3 lite...

[TairosAurelius]

Please no, don't make VIC 2 HOI 3 lite...

As long as we don't lose any depth elsewhere, why not? You have to base the combat system on something.

[Capt. Kiwi]

I don't think it would take that much to have a very simple brigade/regiment system - it wouldn't need to be as detailed as HoI3. Even keeping it as basic as being able to merge brigades/regiments of the same type into a plain infantry or cavalry division would help with garrisoning, wars in colonies and putting down rebels. It wouldn't be too much more effort from there to remember the names of the units the division was formed from, or to add in other minor features, the key being to keep it simple with only features that aid ease of use.
Edit: For some reason I thought I'd read the second page when I hadn't, and so basicallly I'm agreeing with extox

[ComradeOm]

And ComradeOm: I can see where you are coming from. The strength of Vicky (to me) has always been that it is PI's strongest economic game, making you think in totally different ways from the others. That being the case, however, Vicky2 is also the perfect place to model the economic impact not just of war, but also of militaries in general

As I said, I think it should be an economic/social simulator first and foremost. This is more than just an unwillingness to deal with brigades as there is a limited number of features that P'dox can build into this game. Time spent implementing a brigade system will detract from work on more relevant/important features. And even after release, I don't want my CPU detailing with the intricacies of myriad brigades when it has the world economy to cope with

So let's leave the micro military details to wargames

[Ovg]

I think it would be best if you could just sepcify how many troops would you like to train, like a dvision of 1000 troops instead of 10.000.

[cyberhunne]

Regiments would be a fun addition, but they would only be needed if Vicky2 gets a comparable number of provinces like Hoi3. If there is no room to place your regiments, then you might as well just group them together and call them divions. Also, by the time of the Crimean war every non-minor nation had armies numbering 100.000+, where divisions are more useful for organisation.

What could be considered is a type of half-strength colonial militia mini-division for garrison duty, capped at 5.000 men, to deal with the occasional rebels. It would also help to alleviate the "native artillery divisions" exploit if you only allowed such colonial militia. The dangers are that 1. exploitative players or the AI starts spamming these units and 2. regiment-sized small units blitzing through undefended territory.

[Grosshaus]

For me the optimal solution would be to take a step back to the golden olden days of EU2 and not at all define the size of a unit. If you want to build an army of 5000 men or 500 men, you just change the number in the build screen. If you want to split your army of 5000 men to 10 armies of 500 men, then just split it.

[ComradeOm]

For me the optimal solution would be to take a step back to the golden olden days of EU2 and not at all define the size of a unit. If you want to build an army of 5000 men or 500 men, you just change the number in the build screen. If you want to split your army of 5000 men to 10 armies of 500 men, then just split it.

I hated the EUII recruitment system. Hated it with a passion. It was a terrible chore to gather an army together and keep it reinforced. The regimental/division system of Vicky or EUIII is far superior in my opinion