Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
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 3 9045 Bug Reports 5235 User Mods 385 Multiplayer 44 Suggestions 2284 Tech Support 532 After Action Reports (AARs)
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

Dev Diary #44 - Battles

16_9 (9).jpg


Ave and welcome to another Dev Diary! Today I will be talking about how Battles work and what their consequences are. If you haven't already, I suggest you first read through the dev diary on Fronts and get acquainted with the concepts explained there.

Let's start off with a somewhat updated version of the Front panel. Do note that this is all still very much WIP and not all values are hooked in, balanced or polished. For example at the moment there are a lot more deaths in battles than there should be.

Who could’ve seen this war coming?

DD44 01.png


In order for a battle to happen one side must have at least one General with an Advance order. Once this happens an advancement meter will slowly start to fill up and once it’s full a new battle will be launched. Various factors can increase or decrease the time it takes.

When the battle is created a sequence of actions unfolds before the fighting begins. All of these are in script and can be tweaked by mods as desired.
  • The attacker picks their leading General
  • The defender picks their leading General
  • The battle province is determined along the frontline
  • The attacker determines the number of units they can bring
  • The defender determines the number of units they can bring
  • Both sides selects their units
While there can be several Generals on the Front, only one is selected for each side in a Battle. They are not limited to selecting their own units and so may borrow additional ones from other Generals or the local Garrisons.

In addition each side randomizes a Battle Condition which provides bonuses (or penalties) to their units similar to Combat Tactics in Hearts of Iron 4. Unlike HOI4 though these are fixed for the duration of the battle. For example a General with the Engineer trait has a higher chance of selecting the “Dug In” Battle Condition which provides defensive modifiers.

Königgrätz anyone?
DD44 02.png


Now the shooting (and dying) finally starts! The battle takes place over a number of rounds and will continue until one side is either wiped out or retreats. The round sequence is roughly as follows:
  • Each side determines how many fighting-capable men it still has
  • Each side inflicts casualties on the other side
  • Each side attempts to recover wounded casualties
  • Each side also suffers morale damage according to casualties
  • If one side is wiped or retreats, the battle ends

Units have two primary combat values: Offense is used when attacking and Defense is used when defending. It is wise to plan ahead and specialize your armies for the war you are planning to fight. There are of course a whole bunch of additional modifiers used in conjunction with battles.

Crack open the fortress of Liège!
DD44 03.png


Casualties are determined by both sheer numbers and the relative combat stats between the two sides. For example a numerically inferior force equipped with more modern weapons may still emerge victorious against a larger foe.

When a side takes casualties it is randomly distributed amongst its units with some caveats.
Each unit has a majority culture depending on the pops in its barracks and casualties are applied roughly in proportion to unit culture. So with 4 French/1 Flemish units fighting on the same side the French will take roughly 80% of the casualties.

Not all pops who take casualties will end up dead though. A portion of these may instead end up as Dependents of other pops. After a long bloody war a nation may thus end up with a large number of wounded war-veterans who need to be supported by the rest of the population. In the long term this may be a cause of unrest and financial strain on the economy.

Morale damage is inflicted in proportion to the casualties and will slowly recover over time outside of battles presuming the units are in good supply.

One step closer to Unification
DD44 04.png


After the battle is over two things will happen:

A number of provinces are Captured depending on how decisive the victory was, unit characteristics, Generals, etc. This will alter the frontline and the winner will occupy those provinces until retaken or the end of the war.
A victorious defender will only take back land that was previously lost to the enemy while a victorious attacker will push into enemy land and take control of more provinces owing to their aggressive posture.

Devastation is also inflicted on the State in which the battle was fought. Large, brutal battles waged with modern weaponry will increase the devastation caused. It reduces infrastructure and building throughput, increases mortality and causes emigration. These effects persist after the war and will take quite some time to recover.

That’s it for this week! Next week we switch over to the political battlefield and discuss Elections! *ducks back into the trenches*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 237Like
  • 124
  • 46
  • 29Love
  • 10
  • 4Haha
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Just wondering if you can build/bury land mines in certain terrains and then eventually guide your enemies to advance in terrain that is the favor of your general's trait.
 
JJZ99 said:
Just wondering if you can build/bury land mines in certain terrains and then eventually guide your enemies to advance in terrain that is the favor of your general's trait.
Click to expand...
definitely beyond the scope of the game
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I am afraid this automated warfare system will be a down for Victoria 3. This is a step too far, we need a minimum of player interaction/control just to make it more interesting (like positioning, deciding composition of armies or drawing a plan, something). From afar, you are just taking a trusty but rusty warfare system to exchange it with nothing, like we are just now watching the battle UI of Victoria 2 without being able to choose ourselves the concentration/position of troops. This automated system seems just to take away one player interaction with your game to force him to watch RNG simulator having the fun while he is just sitting here after clicking two buttons, hoping that the game will know how to prioritize. And none of the answers are reassuring me because they are just all saying the same thing: trust us, this is WIP, we are still tinkering, etc. Nothing I have read for now is capable to make me believe it will be a fun experience as "interactive" as the old one.

Outside of that, I have not so many concerns about the game. Most or what I have read seems exciting and full of good ideas (that could be even be pushed far more).
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 6
Reactions:
Larkh said:
I am afraid this automated warfare system will be a down for Victoria 3. This is a step too far, we need a minimum of player interaction/control just to make it more interesting (like positioning, deciding composition of armies or drawing a plan, something). From afar, you are just taking a trusty but rusty warfare system to exchange it with nothing, like we are just now watching the battle UI of Victoria 2 without being able to choose ourselves the concentration/position of troops. This automated system seems just to take away one player interaction with your game to force him to watch RNG simulator having the fun while he is just sitting here after clicking two buttons, hoping that the game will know how to prioritize. And none of the answers are reassuring me because they are just all saying the same thing: trust us, this is WIP, we are still tinkering, etc. Nothing I have read for now is capable to make me believe it will be a fun experience as "interactive" as the old one.

Outside of that, I have not so many concerns about the game. Most or what I have read seems exciting and full of good ideas (that could be even be pushed far more).
Click to expand...
I don’t think being “interactive” is what the devs want from warfare. Let me explain:

The game, in peacetime, should have enough going on to fully occupy the player. Politics, diplomacy, trade, economy, etc.

Now, go to war. You have trade routes being cut as your convoys are raided. You need to ensure you have sufficient supply of guns, ships, ammunition, and every other military good. Border territories are being captured or devastated by fighting, lowering production and causing migration.

Even without touching your armed forces, war with be a handful and a half to manage.

Now, do I think the current system is perfect? Of course not. But the problem imo isn’t a lack of interactivity, so much as it is a lack of choices. Broad strategic goals, the ability to declare specific states or cities of particular interest to your generals. But direct interaction with your armies should only happen a few times during a war, not be a constant babysitting experience. Your hands will be full enough as it is.
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
Reactions:
IsaacCAT said:
How long can a battle last? At the start of the XX century with all the changes in warfare, battles could last for months.
Click to expand...

This and also conversely, How short can a battle be? Even massive battles could have lasted just a few hours – like the battle of Königgrätz, which was decided in about 8 hours and involved just shy of half a million combatants.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
Reactions:
Such a disappointment.
 
  • 9
  • 6
Reactions:
I think the battle system is probably the best for this specific time period I'm sure it's going to be cool to experience. I do think though that many times in history as you the player are in the pov of the nation/ruler you are playing. The main leader would give orders to their generals. For example, during the American civil war, McLellan had been told repeatedly to go and attack the confederacy yet he was hesitant to even do so with a numerical advantage. A take on how specific general traits affect a general's specific decisions, which I'm already seeing a little of in this DD. I think in order to incorporate at least some relative control the player, should be able to give specific orders to your generals/armies, and then the automated system comes into place where there is a roll of the dice to see the outcomes of the conflict. I also think that generals specifically don't make much mechanical sense to the impact of the battles as the leaders of these nations had a direct influence on the military strategies taught in military schools as well as the moving and replacing of generals. As seen in WW1 in which the generals who had started the war were completely different than those in 1918. The same could be argued for ACW. In order for combat to feel as impactful as it was a casualty counter could come into order. Maybe as well as a range to the casualties as many times losses weren't accounted for, I guess this could be a "mia/unaccounted for" category along with wounded and dead. I'm sure that these ideas would be hard to implement, but this could curve at least the disdain for the new system and give an interesting new take on combat. I think other aspects of the game just based on the DD should keep the player occupied, but the War aspects which people enjoy the most are a bit underwhelming. I also think this system would help counteract the multiplayer issue of whoever could click the fastest ie hoi4 latency/lag issues surrounding unit interaction. In regard to the military leadership, the education of certain military strategies directly affects the war effort as to the french ideas of elan and the constant offensive. With its failure, it prompted sweeping reforms of a more defensive strategy. This on day 1 would significantly help with the dry atmosphere of combat, based on the DD. Other than that all looks cool, new and good, keep up the good work.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe irrelevant with this DD but I believe Defensive infrastructure of a state should exist (like forts, coastal fortresses, trenches, mines) that the government must build, maintain and support with manpower and resources. It should be something expensive to have. Because how an advanced European country (e.g France) is more defended than a primitive one?. It could just be a building (like urban center) that provides more defenses through production methods in each state (I'm sure you can design it better than me) and it would just provide positive modifiers to the defending army or negative to the advancing one. Apart from that l I find the new system interesting.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
ChiefFarfar said:
Maybe irrelevant with this DD but I believe Defensive infrastructure of a state should exist (like forts, coastal fortresses, trenches, mines) that the government must build, maintain and support with manpower and resources. It should be something expensive to have. Because how an advanced European country (e.g France) is more defended than a primitive one?. It could just be a building (like urban center) that provides more defenses through production methods in each state (I'm sure you can design it better than me) and it would just provide positive modifiers to the defending army or negative to the advancing one. Apart from that l I find the new system interesting.
Click to expand...
Would this be materially different to a Barracks and a Garrisoning general?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back