So, the idea of giving an army a goal to work towards.
Dev response on the Diary: “What we're considering adding is a method of prioritizing the various targets in the war, and setting custom targets, on a national (not Front- or General-) level. What we need to be careful with here is to not add methods of control that make the player technically able to control with precision how Generals act in every moment by microing their priorities.”
I think many people are unsatisfied with this, and want a way to give an army a specific goal. I agree wholeheartedly with this. Let’s look at a historical example; the February 1862-July 1863 campaign for control of the Mississippi River.
The Mississippi River was vital to both the Union and Confederacy, for primarily economic reasons. For the Confederacy, loss of the Mississippi meant the loss of the vast supplies of the Trans-Mississippi, with the loss of the vast farmland of Texas felt particularly hard. For the Union, as long as the Mississippi was in Confederate hands, the entire Midwestern economy ground to a halt; without the river route to the sea, goods produced in the Midwest could only be exported across land, which was far less efficient. I think both of these are things Vic3 would have to represent, beyond economic and logistic in nature.
Now, let’s look at the system as it is. Ulysses S. Grant’s army is put on “Advance” orders, and starts pushing into Confederate territory. With no way to tell him to take the Mississippi, he just advances blindly; the Midwest suffers, and the Confederates have their supply lines. This is not only untenable for gameplay, it’s also unrealistic; everyone knew the Mississippi was the Union’s goal because its value was obvious. Given that I doubt the AI will be robust enough to “know” the strategic value of the Mississippi, the player needs a way to push the AI to do that.
So, we need some way to give goals to individual armies. But how can we avoid that turning into somewhat-hand-off microing?
Here’s my suggestion.
Scattered across the map, there are “Strategic Targets”. These can be of two types; a province, like a national capital or major city, or a line, like a large river or important railroad. On both Advance and Defend orders, the player has the option to select one of these Strategic Targets to either focus the attack on or focus the defense on. That army will then work towards achieving that goal. If the player does not select a particular goal, the AI will instead generally work towards those Strategic Targets. Strategic Targets give a slight boost to warscore, but their impact is primarily on affecting the enemy’s ability to continue fighting rather then directly on warscore.
So how do we avoid manipulating the system to allow micro? My suggestion comes in two parts.
1. The player has no control over how the AI goes about achieving this goal. An Aggressive general might launch an all-out offensive directly at his target, a Maneuvering general might attempt to get around his enemy, a Cautious general might just very slowly push towards the target. Maybe the general will even ignore orders; if the general’s home region is occupied by the enemy, he might forgo his goal in favor of trying to liberate his home. The player can only choose a goal, and that only from a Strategic Target; no “Alright, move to this town and then to that one” or “Take this city by advancing this way”, only “Take this major city” or “Secure this railroad”.
2. There is a difference between a Target chosen to defend and a Target chosen to attack. A Target chosen to defend can be changed at will based on where the enemy might be threatening; however, to change an Offensive Target is an admission of defeat. Once an Offensive Target is chosen for an army, to change it is to admit “We have failed to achieve our goal.” Naturally, this will severely influence public opinion to the negative; war exhaustion/displeasure with the government will rise. If a small army is redirected, maybe few will notice, but if a large army changes its Offensive Target, that will incur a very severe penalty; admitting your large force failed is a heavy blow to public morale. Even if an army with an Offensive Target is changed to a Defensive stance, if switched back to Advance, it will keep the same Target. Only once an Offensive Target is achieved will choosing a new one be capable.
Let’s look at two historical examples to see how this system might function.
Mississippi Campaign: An army under Ulysses S. Grant is given orders to secure the Mississippi River. This entails making sure no province bordering the river is under Confederate control. Grant prefers Maneuver to outright Attack; facing Confederate strongholds at first Columbus, then Memphis, and finally Vicksburg, Grant moves to cut off those strongholds, forcing the Confederates to either retreat or be besieged. Meanwhile, Confederate forces in the area have orders to defend the Mississippi. At Columbus and Memphis, the Confederates choose to evacuate rather than be besieged; at Vicksburg, they choose to hold. Grant wins the subsequent siege and take Vicksburg. With a second army in Louisiana pushing north from New Orleans with the same goal taking Fort Hudson, the Offensive Target has been achieved; Grant can now be redirected to join Rosecrans for the Battle of Chattanooga.
Eastern Theater: At the start of the war, the main Union army selects as its Offensive Target the Confederate capital of Richmond. As the war goes on, various attempts to take Richmond have failed, though Confederate counterattacks have also been halted. However, despite the immense difficulty of taking Richmond, changing the Offensive Target of the largest army in the field would devastate national morale, so the Union army continues to try for “On to Richmond!” Even as bloodshed mounts, the Union is unwilling to take the penalty for admitting failure, and so the bloody push to Richmond continues to the bitter end.
Now what would happen if someone tried to use this system to micro? They decide they want their army to move northeast and then double back southeast, so they choose an Offensive Target to the northeast. Once their army has reached the point where they want it to move southeast, they change the Strategic Target. This then incurs the heavy penalty for changing an Offensive Target, and public frustration rises to the point where the war effort is severely hampered. The attempt to abuse the system to micro has failed utterly.
I think that this system would achieve both of the critical things any system of Army Goals need to; it gives the player the ability to strategically direct a war, but still prevents microing. With a list of Strategic Targets automatically chosen by the game (say, select rivers, major railroads, national capitals, and cities past some threshold of size), this also keeps player control firmly at the strategic level, while giving them plenty of control at said level. It also adds only a tiny amount of complexity, keeping it easy for the player; if you have a large number of small armies, you can just not give them specific Goals.
So, what do you think? Please do comment with any thoughts.
Dev response on the Diary: “What we're considering adding is a method of prioritizing the various targets in the war, and setting custom targets, on a national (not Front- or General-) level. What we need to be careful with here is to not add methods of control that make the player technically able to control with precision how Generals act in every moment by microing their priorities.”
I think many people are unsatisfied with this, and want a way to give an army a specific goal. I agree wholeheartedly with this. Let’s look at a historical example; the February 1862-July 1863 campaign for control of the Mississippi River.
The Mississippi River was vital to both the Union and Confederacy, for primarily economic reasons. For the Confederacy, loss of the Mississippi meant the loss of the vast supplies of the Trans-Mississippi, with the loss of the vast farmland of Texas felt particularly hard. For the Union, as long as the Mississippi was in Confederate hands, the entire Midwestern economy ground to a halt; without the river route to the sea, goods produced in the Midwest could only be exported across land, which was far less efficient. I think both of these are things Vic3 would have to represent, beyond economic and logistic in nature.
Now, let’s look at the system as it is. Ulysses S. Grant’s army is put on “Advance” orders, and starts pushing into Confederate territory. With no way to tell him to take the Mississippi, he just advances blindly; the Midwest suffers, and the Confederates have their supply lines. This is not only untenable for gameplay, it’s also unrealistic; everyone knew the Mississippi was the Union’s goal because its value was obvious. Given that I doubt the AI will be robust enough to “know” the strategic value of the Mississippi, the player needs a way to push the AI to do that.
So, we need some way to give goals to individual armies. But how can we avoid that turning into somewhat-hand-off microing?
Here’s my suggestion.
Scattered across the map, there are “Strategic Targets”. These can be of two types; a province, like a national capital or major city, or a line, like a large river or important railroad. On both Advance and Defend orders, the player has the option to select one of these Strategic Targets to either focus the attack on or focus the defense on. That army will then work towards achieving that goal. If the player does not select a particular goal, the AI will instead generally work towards those Strategic Targets. Strategic Targets give a slight boost to warscore, but their impact is primarily on affecting the enemy’s ability to continue fighting rather then directly on warscore.
So how do we avoid manipulating the system to allow micro? My suggestion comes in two parts.
1. The player has no control over how the AI goes about achieving this goal. An Aggressive general might launch an all-out offensive directly at his target, a Maneuvering general might attempt to get around his enemy, a Cautious general might just very slowly push towards the target. Maybe the general will even ignore orders; if the general’s home region is occupied by the enemy, he might forgo his goal in favor of trying to liberate his home. The player can only choose a goal, and that only from a Strategic Target; no “Alright, move to this town and then to that one” or “Take this city by advancing this way”, only “Take this major city” or “Secure this railroad”.
2. There is a difference between a Target chosen to defend and a Target chosen to attack. A Target chosen to defend can be changed at will based on where the enemy might be threatening; however, to change an Offensive Target is an admission of defeat. Once an Offensive Target is chosen for an army, to change it is to admit “We have failed to achieve our goal.” Naturally, this will severely influence public opinion to the negative; war exhaustion/displeasure with the government will rise. If a small army is redirected, maybe few will notice, but if a large army changes its Offensive Target, that will incur a very severe penalty; admitting your large force failed is a heavy blow to public morale. Even if an army with an Offensive Target is changed to a Defensive stance, if switched back to Advance, it will keep the same Target. Only once an Offensive Target is achieved will choosing a new one be capable.
Let’s look at two historical examples to see how this system might function.
Mississippi Campaign: An army under Ulysses S. Grant is given orders to secure the Mississippi River. This entails making sure no province bordering the river is under Confederate control. Grant prefers Maneuver to outright Attack; facing Confederate strongholds at first Columbus, then Memphis, and finally Vicksburg, Grant moves to cut off those strongholds, forcing the Confederates to either retreat or be besieged. Meanwhile, Confederate forces in the area have orders to defend the Mississippi. At Columbus and Memphis, the Confederates choose to evacuate rather than be besieged; at Vicksburg, they choose to hold. Grant wins the subsequent siege and take Vicksburg. With a second army in Louisiana pushing north from New Orleans with the same goal taking Fort Hudson, the Offensive Target has been achieved; Grant can now be redirected to join Rosecrans for the Battle of Chattanooga.
Eastern Theater: At the start of the war, the main Union army selects as its Offensive Target the Confederate capital of Richmond. As the war goes on, various attempts to take Richmond have failed, though Confederate counterattacks have also been halted. However, despite the immense difficulty of taking Richmond, changing the Offensive Target of the largest army in the field would devastate national morale, so the Union army continues to try for “On to Richmond!” Even as bloodshed mounts, the Union is unwilling to take the penalty for admitting failure, and so the bloody push to Richmond continues to the bitter end.
Now what would happen if someone tried to use this system to micro? They decide they want their army to move northeast and then double back southeast, so they choose an Offensive Target to the northeast. Once their army has reached the point where they want it to move southeast, they change the Strategic Target. This then incurs the heavy penalty for changing an Offensive Target, and public frustration rises to the point where the war effort is severely hampered. The attempt to abuse the system to micro has failed utterly.
I think that this system would achieve both of the critical things any system of Army Goals need to; it gives the player the ability to strategically direct a war, but still prevents microing. With a list of Strategic Targets automatically chosen by the game (say, select rivers, major railroads, national capitals, and cities past some threshold of size), this also keeps player control firmly at the strategic level, while giving them plenty of control at said level. It also adds only a tiny amount of complexity, keeping it easy for the player; if you have a large number of small armies, you can just not give them specific Goals.
So, what do you think? Please do comment with any thoughts.
Last edited:
- 91
- 16
- 11
- 4
- 3
