• 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.

Emperor Leo

The Brainstormer
18 Badges
May 17, 2008
1.016
2
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Ok, so I thought I'd jump in with another Brainstorm. I apologise if I'm bombarding you with these recently!

I want to look at how we control our armies and the tactics we use to gain victories over our enemies. I'll break this Brainstorm into two pieces to make it easier.

Current battle system: Move Army A to Enemy B. You either win or you end up chasing the enemy accross the world in a Tom & Jerry style. I don't want to change this drastically, but add some more layers and options to make things more interesting.

Part One - Terrain

Each province on the map should consist of two or three terrain types (depending on the province). These terrain types should be visible icons when the province is clicked on for a closer look. When you move an army to a province, you can choose where you wish to position your troops. If you don't choose a position, the game will use the default setting (i.e. no modifiers). Each terrain type will have pros and cons and you can choose depending on your situation, playing style.

For example, if I moved my army into an Alps province, I'll have a choice of terrain to station my troops:

Mountains

  • All Unit Defensive +100%
  • Militia Offensive -15%
  • Heavy Infantry Offensive -25%
  • Cavalry Offensive -50%
  • Horse Archer Offensive -25%
  • War Elephant Offensive -75%
  • Max. Attrition +2.00
OR

Plains

  • Militia Defensive -25%
  • Heavy Infantry Defensive -10%
  • Cavalry Offensive +25%
  • Horse Archer Offensive +25%
  • War Elephant Offensive +50%

So, in this example I might consider Gallia Cisaplania a key province. I need to defend it at all costs. I don't have any horses or elephants, so I decide to dig in and defend a mountain pass. I may not have the offensive bonus, but the enemy will have to throw themselves at shields and stone.

If, in another game, I have the same situation but with an army with a majority of horses, I might want to use the open fields to my advantage. My infantry will be exposed on all sides, but my cavalry will have the freedom of movement.

You don't have to use the terrain, but it may just be the factor you need to turn the tide of a decisive battle. You cannot switch to the terrain options if your army is a) moving, b) under attack or c) retreating from a defeat. The attacker would have no terrain modifiers. Unless it was the standard "river crossing" or "sea attack" modifier. With this new terrain system, you could craft your own Battle of Thermopylae or Battle of the Teutoburg Forset.

Part Two - Army Orders
Can only be used by armies with a General attached.

Marching Camps

When your army is stationary at a province, I'd like to be able to construct a temporary marching camp. This wouldn't literally construct a building at the province, but instead give modifiers to the army that used the action. A marching camp could provide the army with the following:

  • Gold Cost 5.0
  • Unit Defensive +25%
  • Unit Offensiveness -25%
  • Morale +0.25
  • Reinforcement Speed +2.5%
  • Retreat Delay +2.00

If these marching camps were mixed with the different terrain types (see above), they could be used very potently. The camp and modifiers are immediately lost if the army moves from the province.

Forced March

Forced March is a command used when you're desperate to reach a province before an enemy or trying to catch up with an enemy army before it reaches safety. When you move an army, you can use the Forced March action. This causes your army to move at double it's usual movement speed, but causes the following negative effects:

  • Army Morale -1.00
  • Reinforement Speed -2.5%
  • General Popularity -10%

Anyway, that's enough for now, I think. :D Let me know what your thoughts and ideas are.
 
I like your ideas so far, but these not so.

They might make the game unplayable: if I march my army to another area, five provinces away, I don't want to get a pop-up or something to choose a terrain for defense.
 
They might make the game unplayable: if I march my army to another area, five provinces away, I don't want to get a pop-up or something to choose a terrain for defense.

You wouldn't have to. I agree that it would be irritating to have a pop-up everytime your army moves. The terrain could be chosen or switched off (no modifiers) in the province window. Only one terrain type can be used per province at one time, as you couldn't have two armies occupying different terrain.

As a quick aside, one this I would realisticaly like added to the game (even in a patch) is a symbol in the province window telling me what terrain bonus or river crossings are in a province.
 
So, say I opt to defend a mountain pass. My opponent attacks the province, but decides to stay on the plaines. What happens?

The opponent has no say in what terrain they use. If they attack your army, they do so on your terms. The opponent suffers no modifiers (i.e. the terrain bonus applies only to you). If they don't want to attack, they will have to divert their army another way around our hope that you decamp and attack them at a different province (in which case, they will have chosen the terrain to use, if any). The multiple terrain options per province are simply to allow the player or AI to choose a battlefield which suits their situation, not to create different "areas". Similar to how, in the current game, players can use rivers and sea attacks to their advantage.
 
These sound like very good ideas, but militia should get good bonuses when
defending in a mountan pass/forest. I mean reaaal good bonuses(Guerilla tactics)
 
but militia should get good bonuses when defending in a mountan pass/forest. I mean reaaal good bonuses(Guerilla tactics)

My thoughts exactly. I was thinking Marshlands and Mountains would be good for Militia or Archers (lightly armoured, no heavy equipment, good vantage points for Archers, etc). Could bring a new use for the mostly useless Militia unit, too. If you have a stack of Militia being chased down by Cavalry, you could Force March them to a dense forest province and dig in. The enemy then has a tough choice; enter the forest to meet their enemy or give up the chase and move on, letting your army escape to fight another day.
 
Cavalry should probably lose all bonuses related to the fact that they have horses in forests, marches and the like.
 
Emperor Leo, if I understand you correctly, you suggest a new mechanics of "deploy orders" that apply before the army engages in battle. That is a very good idea.

I would also like to have full control over what orders are issued during the stages of a battle, so that players have the option of issuing a new order after each dice roll.

These tactical orders would be similar to existing battle events ("wedge", "hold ground", etc.), but would be activated by the player instead of firing randomly. Thus, the AI should be taught how to use them.

Player-activated tactics should have a success chance depending on the general's stats and traits. Thus, there should be traits that enable a new tactics or raise its success chance. If the dice roll fails, your general will get the opposite of the desired result.

Here are some examples:
  • Retreat: Only available if retreat delay is lower than 2. If successful, your army's morale drops to nil and losses are reduced. If it fails, the battle proceeds as usual, but your army suffers 20% more losses plus a discipline penalty. Any general should be able to issue a retreat order, regardless of his traits. (I realise that this has the downside of exacerbating the ping-pong problem, but that's why there should be a severe penalty for failing the retreat roll).
  • Testudo formation: enabled by a trait. If successful, heavy infantry suffers less archery damage. If unsuccessful, there’s a penalty to heavy infantry offensive. (Testudo makes it more difficult to engage in hand-to-hand combat).
  • Assault the General's bodyguard: You expose your army to much heavier losses but, if you succeed, the enemy general is killed, wounded or captured. The chance of success should be very low in the initial stages of the battle, but much higher if you are about to win (e.g. the enemy's morale is much lower than yours).
 
Last edited:
Emperor Leo, if I understand you correctly, you suggest a new mechanics of "deploy orders" that apply before the army engages in battle. That is a very good idea.

Yes, this is exactly right. Basically, when you move an army into a province, you simply click the "Mountains" (or whatever terrain is present) option on the province window. You army will now be stationed with the "Mountains" modifiers until you decide otherwise.

I would also like to have full control over what orders are issued during the stages of a battle, so that players have the option of issuing a new order after each dice roll.

This is a good idea that's been discussed in the past. It has one major drawback for me and that's what if you've got 6 battles all happening accross the map, simultaneously? You'd have to jump from one battle to the next issuing orders, hoping that a dice doesn't roll when you're ordering another army. I'm not bashing your idea as I like it, but there needs to be a manageable way to implement it.
 
This is a good idea that's been discussed in the past. It has one major drawback for me and that's what if you've got 6 battles all happening accross the map, simultaneously? You'd have to jump from one battle to the next issuing orders, hoping that a dice doesn't roll when you're ordering another army. I'm not bashing your idea as I like it, but there needs to be a manageable way to implement it.

Yes, I am aware of that drawback, and I agree that it is a major one.

To a lesser extent, a similar problem arises with your proposal too: prior to fighting simultaneous battles, wouldn’t you have to manage multiple “deploy orders” relating to terrain positioning? You make it sound simple: “just click the Mountains button”, but you have to time that click before your army engages in battle. That might not be easy when you’re fighting several battles at regular speed. But I do see your point: my proposal makes that sort of micro-management even worse – after the preliminary “deploy orders” you’d also have to jump back and forth and carefully time the additional tactics to be employed while fighting.

I can think of only two solutions:

  1. Make all tactical mechanics entirely optional, so that you suffer no penalties if you decide to issue few orders, or none at all.
  2. Have the option to set your generals to "auto-play". During battles, the AI will issue the orders for you (hopefully, it will not make dumb choices), but you can jump in at any time and override AI control.

An additional solution is to improve the interface, so that all simultaneous battles are displayed at once on a new battle screen. Even then, you'd often have to freeze the timer in order to micro-manage your tactical options. But that, no an extent, is to be expected: more tactical choices (including the ones you yourself propose) come at the cost of more micro-management.
 
To a lesser extent, a similar problem arises with your proposal too: prior to fighting simultaneous battles, wouldn’t you have to manage multiple “deploy orders” relating to terrain positioning? You make it sound simple: “just click the Mountains button”, but you have to time that click before your army engages in battle. That might not be easy when you’re fighting several battles at regular speed. But I do see your point: my proposal makes that sort of micro-management even worse – after the preliminary “deploy orders” you’d also have to jump back and forth and carefully time the additional tactics to be employed while fighting.

I can think of only two solutions:

Make all tactical mechanics entirely optional, so that you suffer no penalties if you decide to issue few orders, or none at all.

Have the option to set your generals to "auto-play". During battles, the AI will issue the orders for you (hopefully, it will not make dumb choices), but you can jump in at any time and override AI control.

An additional solution is to improve the interface, so that all simultaneous battles are displayed at once on a new battle screen. Even then, you'd often have to freeze the timer in order to micro-manage your tactical options. But that, no an extent, is to be expected: more tactical choices (including the ones you yourself propose) come at the cost of more micro-management.

With my idea, I saw it as an option when at peace, too. So you can position your armies in your own time, but I see what you mean, it could could be a nightmare when you've got multiple armies on the move.

The auto-play option you suggest could work for both our ideas, but maybe allow the player to select which tactics the General should favour (Offensive, Defensive, Cause Damage, Minimise Losses, etc.). Keep the option to over-ride the AI, though. If you wanted to keep the roleplay element of the game, the AI Generals should always be in control of their own tactics and you can only have direct control over yourself (the Ruler) and your heir apparent.
 
I like the ideas presented so far. In addition, I think some sort of Fabian tactics should be introduced as well. You avoid battle and only minor skirmishes occur between the two armies in the province. Fabian tactics are basically a form of of guerilla warfare. All armies can do it in hills and mountians but you would have to have a more mobile army in plains, desert and forest.

A point I have been making for a while is that the number of available field armies should be restricted. As a starting point for a single province nation you should have a maximum of two armies. Where you use one army there are no penalties, where you use two armies you suffer penalties (organisaton, supply, etc). Or make it unlimited but add penalties if you exceed your maximum.

The numebr of field armies would grow as your nation does but not by to much. As an example, as far as I know a big empire like the Seleucids never fielded more than two or three big field armies at once. It was generally only one. Invaders were generally dealt with at a regional garrison level.

This would make battles more important and allow for the implementation of more tactics. In addition you could add regional army options/events:

- attack invaders;
- defend (via garrisoning or guerlla tactics);
- retreat to another region; and
- surrender region.

The control of this could even be taken partly out of the players hands by allowing the regional governors traits to influence part of the outcome.
 
A point I have been making for a while is that the number of available field armies should be restricted. As a starting point for a single province nation you should have a maximum of two armies. Where you use one army there are no penalties, where you use two armies you suffer penalties (organisaton, supply, etc).

The problem with this is that a country like Iberia (with one army) wouldn't stand a chance against the Seleucid Empire (with a dozens of armies). I think it would balance the game too much in the favour of larger Empires (something which I really think the game needs to avoid at the moment).

Or make it unlimited but add penalties if you exceed your maximum.

This is already in place with the global troop support number. Once you exceed your limit, you begin paying extra costs to support the army.
 
The problem with this is that a country like Iberia (with one army) wouldn't stand a chance against the Seleucid Empire (with a dozens of armies). I think it would balance the game too much in the favour of larger Empires (something which I really think the game needs to avoid at the moment).

I am not saying that the Seleucids should have dozens of armies, to the contrary, I am saying two or three field armies at the most. The rest must be handled by their weaker regional armies.

Tribal Optimal: one army
Kingdom Optimal: one army
Large Kingdom Optimal : two armies
Empire Optimal: three armes


This is already in place with the global troop support number. Once you exceed your limit, you begin paying extra costs to support the army.

In a way, but the "back of the envelope" guidelines presented above are a lot more cutting on a larger nation. In the case above if you go beserk and incur the wrath of several different nations at once, or an alliance of nations, you are going to have a serious war on your hands. There would be no more dropping a three unit stack on a few ships and invading via the back door, it would have to be a full blown co-ordinated invasion and the utilisation of one of your limited field army slots.
 
Let the opposing generals make competing Finesse rolls. The winner gets to choose the terrain.

In general, I'd like a system where enemy armies occupying the same province don't automatically engage in battle. Sometimes they did, but sometimes they spent days jockying for position and consulting omens.

I'd like to be able to use a strategy like Fabius Maximus used against Hannibal: follow him around without ever engaging in battle.
 
Let the opposing generals make competing Finesse rolls. The winner gets to choose the terrain.

In general, I'd like a system where enemy armies occupying the same province don't automatically engage in battle. Sometimes they did, but sometimes they spent days jockying for position and consulting omens.

I'd like to be able to use a strategy like Fabius Maximus used against Hannibal: follow him around without ever engaging in battle.

There is some serious merit to this. I think you could simplify the OP's post with a finesse check at battle engagement...but don't make it an automatic binary "I win, he looses" check.

Instead have both commanding generals finesse's added together, then "roll" that dice for the both

This creates a situation where you have one of four results:

A+/D+ == A & D get +1 Charisma
A+/D- == A gets +1 Charisma
A-/D+ == D gets +1 Charisma
A-/D- == break even

The +1 Charisma increased combat event chance for that general.

Now instead of adding the complexity layer described in OP, et al. ... increase instead the combat event types and chances...have those combat events relating to terrain / unit make up.

Defender Events-

Defending the Pass (possibility in Mountain/Hills-- heavy infantry weighted command) +Infantry Defense vs. All

Irregulars Harassing the Flanks (possibility in Mountains/Hills/Swamp/Desert -- militia weighted command) +Militia attack vs. Infantry

Cavalry Harassing the Flanks (Hills/Desert/Open, but with cav weighted command) +Cav attack vs. Infantry

Castra Defense (high discipline infantry, any terrain) +Infantry Defense vs. All


Attacker Events-

Irregulars Hit and Fade (militia weighted command) +Militia Defense vs. All

Cavalry in the Rear (cav weighted command) -Enemy Morale

Bezerkers on the Rampage (militia weighted command) +Militia Attack vs. Infantry

Remorseless Advance (heavy infantry) -Enemy Morale

etc, etc.
 
Forced march would be too much micro imo. I'm not sure how you'd make it balanced.

and would battles necassarily take longer generally in mountaineous terrain? I should think not really (although I could be wrong, just a guess). I mean wouldn't that just give one army an oppertunity to flank another, or gain an advantage easily, either way making the fight go faster one way or another.

Maybe more importantly terrain should have a modifier for how important the martial stat is. A well organised army in a forest would be far more important than elsewhere.
 
Forced march would be too much micro imo. I'm not sure how you'd make it balanced.

and would battles necassarily take longer generally in mountaineous terrain? I should think not really (although I could be wrong, just a guess). I mean wouldn't that just give one army an oppertunity to flank another, or gain an advantage easily, either way making the fight go faster one way or another.

Maybe more importantly terrain should have a modifier for how important the martial stat is. A well organised army in a forest would be far more important than elsewhere.


Yeah I was thinking about how you could make forced marches work at this scale...pretty much if you perform a force march one day your going to be ok with some rest...but to commit a series of forced marches you'll impact your personnel and horseflesh attrition and heavy material levels significantly at a geometrically increasing rate...and even those that do not fall by the wayside are not going to be in great shape (i.e., morale hit) when they get to the destination.

We are lucky we don't have a communication lag of game days/weeks between being able to issue new movement orders to units.

Pretty much all major battles of this time frame were set-piece affairs, especially between "civilized" opponents...so terrain isn't as much a factor as one may assume from more modern warfare. The route of march ambuscades and guerrilla-style actions are fairly famous, but are more aberration than rule, and with certain notable exceptions (Teutoberg,) would fall within an attrition modifier rather than what we see as combat in the game.

I would think that some of this could be handled in a new Rome version that uses the general combat events as seen in HOI3...where your combat philosophy (doctrine) would be best tailored to the types of troops you employ (i.e., Velite/Milita, Heavy Infantry, Equites, Archers, Horse Archers, etc.) Thus your barbarians may use more Militia, but just as in HOI3 the doctrines tied to that troop type would increase your chances for Ambuscades, etc.

In the same vein, "technologies" for the different troop types may allow you to differentiate your Light & Heavy Infantry (greek phalanx vs. centurion for example...just as your Motorized and Armor can be of various quality based on your techs in HOI3.)
 
Last edited:
Well the main thing I mean is if you're like, oh my army is gonna get there before theirs, oh crap now they're there first... I would've stayed in this territory if this was the case.

Especially for multiplayer it'd suck... because at least the AI is somewhat predictable.