Can someone explain how the USA is supposed to take just Louisiana with the current frontlines?

  • 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.
What if, when selecting a general for a front, you could preview their plans to accomplish the goal?

This general plans to take this route while the other general believes it should be done going that way?

I'm thinking whether there should be a system where the AI staff presents some general offensive warplans for the player and the player gets to select from those plans. The plans could be some sort of city targets (e.g. the capital, other major strategic cities), general front priorities (concentrate on the left, centre, right). The plan would then be in effect for a set time, until the goal is reached, until the offense bogs down or if there is major loss of territory in another section of the front, which would then allow player to select new plan to react to that or continue offensive elsewhere.

So as Germany you could involve the neutral Belgium into the war, then select plan to attack towards Paris along the right flank, which would then see your troops concentrate on attacking Belgium and from there onwards to France.
 
  • 8Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
The point is, under current build you cannot do this. They advance towards wargoals. And you can't add new wargoals during the war.

This isn't the case. Paradox has clearly stated that you can give Generals priority targets, which are not the same as the ultimate goal of the war.

For example, you can in fact order the commander in charge of the Army of the Potomac to focus on taking Richmond and he will focus on taking Richmond.

And the idea that there won't be Naval Invasions is pretty damn laughable. Will they happen regularly at launch? Probably not, but that's a balance issue, not a mechanics issue.
 
  • 30
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
This isn't the case. Paradox has clearly stated that you can give Generals priority targets, which are not the same as the ultimate goal of the war.
Paradox has said they might, if they can prevent the opportunity that micro might sneak in through the back door.

For example, you can in fact order the commander in charge of the Army of the Potomac to focus on taking Richmond and he will focus on taking Richmond.
A, Paradox might let you do it if they think they can do it without giving the players the ability to approximate micro; B, there is no distinct "Army of the Potomac", just some battalions assigned to a general somewhere indeterminate in the thousand-mile stretch that is the USA-CSA front.

And the idea that there won't be Naval Invasions is pretty damn laughable. Will they happen regularly at launch? Probably not, but that's a balance issue, not a mechanics issue.
Yes, I imagine they'll be covered in the next DD.
 
  • 29
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Would be great if @lachek or any of devs answered this one, this looks like really a basic thing to know how frontlines work but I guess we will learn maybe after couple of dev diaries :( (not this week, maybe not next)

I think the main question is :
How is the initial position of a general on the frontline determined ?

Being incapable to influence or even tell this initial positioning will make any long frontline the game generates like during the American civil war or the Austro-Prussian war extremely confusing.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
It seems you are correct. That is indeed a little disappointing. That also makes me wonder what happens if your generals complete their goals and occupy the state you’re trying to conquer. If the enemy doesn’t surrender, do your generals just stop advancing into enemy territory and start defending?
thats why you choose a wargoal at the end of the country, this way the generals have to go through all the country to complete its mission. easy-peasy
 
  • 16Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
what??

i am obviously joking. and i have read it, and every other DD. i still think the new war mechanic is boring as f.

I agree. It is boring, as of now. Adding focus points to generals might change it:

General X - advance from Ostpreussen towards Suwałki. General Y - advance from Kattowitz towards Warsaw. Etc. It would add actual STRATEGY to the game. Something that apparently is a pillar to the new system.
 
  • 15
  • 3Like
Reactions:
They've said that a general will advance along a front with respect to factors such as the wargoal, terrain, and happenstance. I'd also guess that cities are prioritised. Kind of a shame that railroads aren't a geographic feature as this was a prime operational goal after the 1860s.

I imagine though that any army marching south will heavily prioritise taking the Mississippi River which should mimic Tecumsah's campaign, but I don't think Sherman's Campaign can be replicated at the moment.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Hopefully, the game will represent Lee's offense on the defense methods that kept the CSA afloat (taking it to the Yankees in Maryland and PA to take pressure off Richmond and avoid a siege). Also, I hope that Sherman's march through SC and GA can be represented as well as the Confederate invasion of KY.
My current understanding is that Lee would be assigned to the one American frontline, so you have no control over if Lee chooses to defend Virginia or Missouri, which can horribly unbalance the war in the Union's favor. Similarly you cannot take the role of Lincoln and move successful Western Front generals to the Army of the Potomac, where they'd be more impactful.
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the whole premise of this thread is kinda flawed TBH. There will always be specific aspects of history that are badly modeled by games or even not at all modeled. Like partisan warfare, attrition tactics etc. Games simply have to cut and chose what their mechanics allow and what not.
 
  • 14
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think the whole premise of this thread is kinda flawed TBH. There will always be specific aspects of history that are badly modeled by games or even not at all modeled. Like partisan warfare, attrition tactics etc. Games simply have to cut and chose what their mechanics allow and what not.
yep, and in this case they chose to cut everything out, and replaced it with a simulation happening in the background that you have no agency over.
 
  • 18
  • 6
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I have a suggestion for a mechanic that could simulate these types of historic strategic decisions while avoiding microing; see here:
 
You know that line of thinking is the same line of thinking that politicians (at least of this variety) had in WW1 when it came to their generals who didn't care about casualties. They are the military men, they know what they are doing. What they say it's a meatgrinder and they just need more men to overload the meatgrinder? Well they must be right, after all it is a generals problem. I'm sure the politicians don't need to demand accountability of their generals to lower casualties and take better care of their soldiers and planning to reduce casualties.

All you need do is listen to Dan Carlin's Blueprint For Armageddon where he certainly talks about this in later parts of the series.
I take it you fully approve then, stating you believe this will grant players a fully historically believable expirience? As opposed to the rather fantasy ratings of 100ish dead enemies to every one of yours as accomplished in previous titles by maximum micromanagement.

The obvious take being to be defensive behind heavy fortifications vs peer opponents and meanwhile primitive savages can be raided fairly freely for western europe sized colonies in highly popular conquests between raw materials, easy wars, more land, souls to convert and prestige. Should leave just unionists grumbling about paying the bill for useless adventures.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I take it you fully approve then, stating you believe this will grant players a fully historically believable expirience? As opposed to the rather fantasy ratings of 100ish dead enemies to every one of yours as accomplished in previous titles by maximum micromanagement.

The obvious take being to be defensive behind heavy fortifications vs peer opponents and meanwhile primitive savages can be raided fairly freely for western europe sized colonies in highly popular conquests between raw materials, easy wars, more land, souls to convert and prestige. Should leave just unionists grumbling about paying the bill for useless adventures.
How do you get approval from what I said about the war system with have minimal involvement when it points to the exact opposite, more player control is needed.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
How do you get approval from what I said about the war system with have minimal involvement when it points to the exact opposite, more player control is needed.
By stating the masslaughter expected is precisely what one would expect from ww1 as it occurred
 
  • 1
Reactions: