Paradox: PLEASE do an expansion totally overhauling the combat system

[Mowers]

Without tanks/gas, late game assaults against entrenched armies should be "suicidal". Early tanks should make things a little bit easier.

Suicidal? Source? From 1915 there was hardly an offensive in which the attackers failed to take the majority of their initial objectives. The issue is not that they could not break in but that they could not break out. The lack of an ability to break out was nothing to do with Gas or tanks deployments. The vast majority of attacks actually go well on day one, its the lack of communications that turn the battles into attrition contests. Hence the Bite and hold debate in the BEF from '16 onwards between the various army commanders.

Tactical indirect support systems, mobile communications, surveillance systems, improved shells, fire techniques, LMGs, squad level formation tactics (SS tactical directives) and sound ranging techniques, to name but a few were the key.

Almost none (any?) of which are in the game although gas and tanks are.... Its WW1 according to WW1 Poets and Blackadder goes Fourth.

[DesertSnow]

Suicidal? Source? From 1915 there was hardly an offensive in which the attackers failed to take the majority of their initial objectives.
Almost none (any?) of which are in the game although gas and tanks are....

Check the Nivelle offensive. Yesterday was the anniversary... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nivelle_Offensive

What I meant by "suicidal" was that the attacker suffers heavy casualties without significant gains. Even if the objective is reached, it is a "Phyrric" victory.

Tactical indirect support systems, mobile communications, surveillance systems, improved shells, fire techniques, LMGs, squad level formation tactics (SS tactical directives) and sound ranging techniques, to name but a few were the key.

I agree with you. Changes in doctrine are very important, as well as less well-known inventions (improved shells are not as famous as tanks). So, they should also be as major a factor as tanks in breaking the stalemate.

Its WW1 according to WW1 Poets and Blackadder goes Fourth.

I am not familiar with the "Blackadder" TV series, so I was not "inspired" by it. Plus, the scores of soldiers who died trying to storm machine gun positions would probably disagree with your view of the war.

[Mowers]

Check the Nivelle offensive. Yesterday was the anniversary... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nivelle_Offensive

I have to admit that Nivelle offensive is not a good example of a break in gone well, although they did achieve many of their initial objectives; which is why the offensive went on for another two weeks. Bear in mind that they only took 40k casualties, considerably less than the Somme where the break in achieved most of its objectives. The rest of the 100k+ casualties were taken attempting to break out. Indeed if we look at Battle of La Malmaison, the final part of the Nivelle plan, it went very well easily achieving the objectives at minimal cost. Yet the same french army failed dismally at the Battle of the Chemin des Dames earlier on during Nivelle. This demonstrates that the issue is far more complex than the current model allows for.

I think its interesting to note that gas and tanks were deployed in significant numbers during Nivelle. What ultimately let down Nivelle was the artillery plan, capability, support and co-ordination in combination with a number of other issues.

What I meant by "suicidal" was that the attacker suffers heavy casualties without significant gains. Even if the objective is reached, it is a "Phyrric" victory.

Yet attackers often made significant gains in the initial assaults, break in objectives were achieved with relatively low casualties. The vast majority of casualties were caused in the break out stage that followed on and why battles like the Somme, Verdun and the 3rd Ypres dragged on for so long.

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat. Initial objectives were reached without being a Pyrrhic victory in most major battles. Break out was never a realistic option on day 1 for most offensives? This is whole reason why there was so much friction between the various army commanders under Haig, with considerable debate between the Gough camp who didn't buy into "Bite and hold" and others who did.

I agree with you. Changes in doctrine are very important, as well as less well-known inventions (improved shells are not as famous as tanks). So, they should also be as major a factor as tanks in breaking the stalemate.

And this is the heart of the matter. But they were far more important in achieving the break in than tanks. It is notable that tanks were only key to the break out bar as radio transporters. What ended the stale mate is entirely different issue. It's worth noting that the biggest breakouts of the war were all achieved with no or a handful tanks that played no notable role.

I am not familiar with the "Blackadder" TV series, so I was not "inspired" by it. Plus, the scores of soldiers who died trying to storm machine gun positions would probably disagree with your view of the war.

Who knows what dead people want, but I suspect that it's not a media inspired 60s fictional view of WW1 tactical issues. Including my six relatives who were killed taking part in offensives on the Western, Isonzo and Salonika Fronts; especially the two killed on Somme whilst attempting a break in that did not go well.

[DesertSnow]

Who knows what dead people want, but I suspect that it's not a media inspired 60s fictional view of WW1 tactical issues. Including my six relatives who were killed taking part in offensives on the Western, Isonzo and Salonika Fronts; especially the two killed on Somme whilst attempting a break in that did not go well.

I am sorry for your loss. May your relatives rest in peace.

[Darkrenown]

Almost none (any?) of which are in the game although gas and tanks are.... Its WW1 according to WW1 Poets and Blackadder goes Fourth.

Gas isn't really a breakthrough weapon in V2 though, assuming roughly equal tech levels the other side will soon develop gas defense, so after a few initial surprise attacks the effect of gas is fairly minimal unless you are fighting lower tech nations. As for tanks, I've always thought that the scale of provinces means that battles are assumed to include both the break in and breakout, that is you only take the province if you manage a successful breakout, so why you failed to breakout doesn't really matter, it's abstracted, all that matters is that you did.

[Secret Master]

Gas isn't really a breakthrough weapon in V2 though, assuming roughly equal tech levels the other side will soon develop gas defense, so after a few initial surprise attacks the effect of gas is fairly minimal unless you are fighting lower tech nations. As for tanks, I've always thought that the scale of provinces means that battles are assumed to include both the break in and breakout, that is you only take the province if you manage a successful breakout, so why you failed to breakout doesn't really matter, it's abstracted, all that matters is that you did.

I'll just add that gas attacks against people without gas defense isn't about offense or defense, anyway. The +3 to combat die rolls means that the side with gas inflicts punishing casualties on the opposition. It can be utilized effectively by anyone, regardless of conflict.

In fact, the irony is that the rush to get gas attacks is usually more important so that you get gas DEFENSE. If everyone already is getting gas defense, I don't care if I'm using gas attacks. I just want immunity to other people's gas attacks.

I think its interesting to note that gas and tanks were deployed in significant numbers during Nivelle. What ultimately let down Nivelle was the artillery plan, capability, support and co-ordination in combination with a number of other issues.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mowers, but when either side could get 5:1 or 10:1 odds in terms of artillery in a particular sector, they did fairly well. It's just that they didn't have the kind of mobile artillery we have these days, and couldn't coordinate that artillery with radio for choosing new targets during an advance like we can with radio.

They also didn't have the sheer number of guns that we can often employ in Vic2. I mean, I can easily get 1:2 in terms of artillery brigades to guards/infantry. That's a ton of firepower to concentrate in a single province when you start stacking 150,000 troops in a single battle.

As for tanks and planes in Vic2, most of this discussion is irrelevant anyway. I don't find tank brigades (with pre-1920 techs) to be cost effective for the firepower they bring to the table. Post 1920, they get much faster, and you can pair them planes to get high recon/high speed/hard hitting formations (that are still a bit undergunned compared to post-1920 artillery brigades in raw scores, but at that point the discipline of the tanks makes a bigger difference). But at that point, we're talking about implementing WWII kinds of doctrines into warfare, just doing it a little early. Pre-1920, just build MOAR artillery and watch your width.

[PaulDirac]

A very humble suggestion: How about putting two additional buttons next to the "Hunt Rebels" button: Auto Siege and Auto Pursue. The Auto Siege would simply have the unit move to occupy the nearest enemy territory without any allied forces present. The Auto Pursue would automatically follow the defeated enemy, provided this wouldn't lead them into a larger enemy force. These two options, IMO, would deal with the main finnicky micromanagement with makes warfare such a drag, and really shouldn't be too labour intensive to implement

Thoughts?

[Chamoisking]

The siege issue can be solved by making armies can siege a province while moving to another province. It is used to simulate the armies continuously occupy the countryside when they're moving from one end of the province the the other. And to make it better, please give infantry and artillery some reconnaissance points so that the more of them present, the faster they occupy like cavalry do. And to make it even better, add a function can be used by the armies that when enabled, they will move at slower speed so that they can leave the besieging province right after it is occupied.

The pursuing issue can be solved by making the retreating army lose some of its force when the battle ends to simulate captured mens. The amount of men being captured depends on the organization of the retreating army and the number of troops of the winning army. If the winning army has outnumbered its enemy greatly, it can capture most of its enemy's troops after 1 battle. And of course, a retreating army with low organization will lose most of its troops. This feature may lead to an interesting situation where you have to choose between retreating early to lose a small fraction of your force or continuing to fight in hope of winning but may lose all of your army. The captured soldiers may be returned to their country after the war ends.

[Veritas555]

A very humble suggestion: How about putting two additional buttons next to the "Hunt Rebels" button: Auto Siege and Auto Pursue. The Auto Siege would simply have the unit move to occupy the nearest enemy territory without any allied forces present. The Auto Pursue would automatically follow the defeated enemy, provided this wouldn't lead them into a larger enemy force. These two options, IMO, would deal with the main finnicky micromanagement with makes warfare such a drag, and really shouldn't be too labour intensive to implement

Thoughts?

But think about that for a second. That would mean that the combat system is so terrible that they have to offer a way out of dealing with it. That's sad.


—V

[s1234567890m]

But think about that for a second. That would mean that the combat system is so terrible that they have to offer a way out of dealing with it. That's sad.


—V

isnt hoi3 automated?

[calvinhobbeslik]

But think about that for a second. That would mean that the combat system is so terrible that they have to offer a way out of dealing with it. That's sad.


—V

If you assume that there are a lot of provinces and that you have to send armies through them to lift occupations, one way or another, an army or multiple armies must move though all of them; thus, it either needs to be done manually or automatically; sililar to pursuing enemy(you can try surrounding, but when another stack attacks a surrounding army, you have to surround that etc.)

[Beagá]

isnt hoi3 automated?

And your point is?

Not everyone thinks HOI3 is the best HOI game. If a game has to automatize too many functions, it´s poorly designed IMO.

[s1234567890m]

And your point is?

Not everyone thinks HOI3 is the best HOI game. If a game has to automatize too many functions, it´s poorly designed IMO.

was mentioning it because OP said they prefered HOI3 combat...

The combat in Vicky 2 is horrendous and makes me NEVER go to war unless I know I won't be fighting much. I'd pay over $50 for you guys to implement the move=attack system from the HOI games

[flame7926]

And your point is?

Not everyone thinks HOI3 is the best HOI game. If a game has to automatize too many functions, it´s poorly designed IMO.

Why is having the option to automatize ever a bad thing?

[Veritas555]

was mentioning it because OP said they prefered HOI3 combat...

I prefer move=attack from HOI the series, I don't prefer anything about HOI3 aside from move=attack.


—V

[calvinhobbeslik]

I prefer move=attack from HOI the series, I don't prefer anything about HOI3 aside from move=attack.


—V

Is there that much of a difference if combat begins as soon as you make the order as opposed to when you enter the province?

Also, does HOI have a system where some units, say artillery, can do combat from 2 or more provinces away?

[Comm Cody]

No.

[calvinhobbeslik]

No.

Are you answering my first question or my second?

[Veritas555]

Is there that much of a difference if combat begins as soon as you make the order as opposed to when you enter the province?

Yes, it completely changes the way wars are fought.


—V

[calvinhobbeslik]

Yes, it completely changes the way wars are fought.


—V

Because it's harder to surround things?