A Detailed Suggestion for an "Army Goals" system that avoids micro

[Yaitz331]

I think the penalty for changing an attack target should be less

in ww1 for an example the goal of many campaigns was basically never really met.

and the Public did care little

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "Strategic Targets". A Strategic Target isn't just "the goal of a campaign", it's "the objective that this army is working towards". So, if we look at Germany's three major WW1 offensives on the Western front (the initial Schlieffen Plan, the Battle of Verdun, and the Spring Offensives), all of them would have a Strategic Target of Paris. Taking Verdun as an example, the Germans were trying to take the city of Verdun; however, the reason they were trying to take Verdun was because they wanted Paris. Their goal was Paris, and taking Verdun would bring the German Army closer to taking Paris. For the entire war, the German army on the Western Front had a Strategic Target of Paris. In this suggested mechanic, not taking Paris doesn't inherently anger the public (although presumably both the heavy losses and the British blockade does), but admitting that Paris is unachievable and trying for a different Strategic Goal would.

of course if you continuesly fail to take a target you loose manpower which likely affects the public opinions you and yadda yadda you don’t want that.

I presume casualties will increase War Exhaustion independent of this suggested mechanic.

also you should be able to have multiple targets: This of course if taken to the extreme will severely restrict your ability to win the war by having too many pointwhere the general „focuses“

The problem is that multiple strategic targets give much more potential for manipulating the system to micro, and don't add much flavor. If you just want your army to push southwest, you could just pick a bunch of Targets to the southwest; when you can only pick one target, you can't use the system to just generally push in a specific direction independent of a specific goal.

And yet again, a Strategic Target is an objective that a whole army is working to capture. Having multiple of those doesn't make sense.

I would also like to have these points to be not stagnant but Variable

For an example in the start of the game in Germany the most important things are likely the agrarian fields and the towns but as you rapidly industrialize the Rheinland becomes the industrial heartland and there are many cities which’s are far more important then beforehand like Berlin becoming even more important then before due to the electric and chemical industry

So these points of interest if you will should be geographic locations like mountain ranges or rivers, infrastructure centers or lines, big cities and industrial centers most of these would be considered by an algorithm like a railroad that transports at least a certain amount of the enemy’s supply’s is one and your industry next to the enemy’s borders is one of your defendables

Fields/industry generally are just a feature of the land you're taking, not a Strategic Target. Like I said before, a Strategic Target isn't just what the goal of a specific campaign is, it's what the goal of all of this army's operations are. If that goal is just generally "Occupy enemy land", that doesn't require a specific Strategic Target, just a general instruction to take enemy land.

Not every single point of interest should be a Strategic Target. A Strategic Target should only be a specific goal that an entire army might be working towards. So, taking a river or capital city would be a Strategic Target, but taking a mountain pass or cutting (rather then securing) a railroad would not be; those are part of a larger strategic goal.

 

[gjfkgjfj]

sht, i never think i would see the day, grand strategy games would avoid micro, oh the times we live in

 

[Sharkseant]

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "Strategic Targets". A Strategic Target isn't just "the goal of a campaign", it's "the objective that this army is working towards". So, if we look at Germany's three major WW1 offensives on the Western front (the initial Schlieffen Plan, the Battle of Verdun, and the Spring Offensives), all of them would have a Strategic Target of Paris. Taking Verdun as an example, the Germans were trying to take the city of Verdun; however, the reason they were trying to take Verdun was because they wanted Paris. Their goal was Paris, and taking Verdun would bring the German Army closer to taking Paris. For the entire war, the German army on the Western Front had a Strategic Target of Paris. In this suggested mechanic, not taking Paris doesn't inherently anger the public (although presumably both the heavy losses and the British blockade does), but admitting that Paris is unachievable and trying for a different Strategic Goal would.


I presume casualties will increase War Exhaustion independent of this suggested mechanic.


The problem is that multiple strategic targets give much more potential for manipulating the system to micro, and don't add much flavor. If you just want your army to push southwest, you could just pick a bunch of Targets to the southwest; when you can only pick one target, you can't use the system to just generally push in a specific direction independent of a specific goal.

And yet again, a Strategic Target is an objective that a whole army is working to capture. Having multiple of those doesn't make sense.


Fields/industry generally are just a feature of the land you're taking, not a Strategic Target. Like I said before, a Strategic Target isn't just what the goal of a specific campaign is, it's what the goal of all of this army's operations are. If that goal is just generally "Occupy enemy land", that doesn't require a specific Strategic Target, just a general instruction to take enemy land.

Not every single point of interest should be a Strategic Target. A Strategic Target should only be a specific goal that an entire army might be working towards. So, taking a river or capital city would be a Strategic Target, but taking a mountain pass or cutting (rather then securing) a railroad would not be; those are part of a larger strategic goal.

I dislike this

i personally would like a system where you could say let’s take that part and then that etc. just a let’s take Paris and his will win the war doesn’t do it for me.

i want to have some control. Like I can understand and accept that I won’t be able to micro eventhough inlove that. But I still hope that atleast i can say army 1 try to take that part so we get that industry or try to take that etc.

Because the way you suggested it it is still the same I start the war doing all the soldier deploying and then set a goal and wait.

i don’t want to simply wait.

i want to plan in which directions my offensives are generally directed.

And while I understand that micro isn’t really what you as the nations hesd/ spirit would be able to do you should be able to say that stuff is important.

Also I dislike the way fronts seemingly are planned but that likely has a pls e to argue somewhere else

 

[Sharkseant]

sht, i never think i would see the day, grand strategy games would avoid micro, oh the times we live in

Like yeah isn’t that kind of what we want of the game to do strategic stuff?

 

[Darsara]

Like yeah isn’t that kind of what we want of the game to do strategic stuff?

I dunno, Grand Strategy seems to me to be almost the opposite of micromanaging everything. Is it really Grand Strategy when you need to need constantly be stopping to remain hyper fixated on where every soldier in your army is while also managing a country, all to avoid something stupid happening the instant your back is turned? Laying out the shape of a war and letting it happen seems far more Stategic then constantly adjusting everything on the fly (or crawl).

 

[Yaitz331]

I dislike this

i personally would like a system where you could say let’s take that part and then that etc. just a let’s take Paris and his will win the war doesn’t do it for me.

i want to have some control. Like I can understand and accept that I won’t be able to micro eventhough inlove that. But I still hope that atleast i can say army 1 try to take that part so we get that industry or try to take that etc.

Because the way you suggested it it is still the same I start the war doing all the soldier deploying and then set a goal and wait.

i don’t want to simply wait.

i want to plan in which directions my offensives are generally directed.

And while I understand that micro isn’t really what you as the nations hesd/ spirit would be able to do you should be able to say that stuff is important.

The point of my suggestion is specifically to augment the existing system, not to redesign it. If you want to argue with the system itself, as opposed to this suggested addition, this thread is not the place to argue that.

For what it's worth, I think that the planned system with this addition has the potential to still be immersive, if sufficiently well-executed.

 

[Sharkseant]

The point of my suggestion is specifically to augment the existing system, not to redesign it. If you want to argue with the system itself, as opposed to this suggested addition, this thread is not the place to argue that.

For what it's worth, I think that the planned system with this addition has the potential to still be immersive, if sufficiently well-executed.

I understand that you wanted to augment it. And I tried the same in the comment. I believe that if the system were to be augmented to give the player a bit more control it would become a viable system.
I also dislike the systeme as a whole but to simply augment it instead of a complete exchange seems more reasonable.

 

[Yaitz331]

I understand that you wanted to augment it. And I tried the same in the comment. I believe that if the system were to be augmented to give the player a bit more control it would become a viable system.
I also dislike the systeme as a whole but to simply augment it instead of a complete exchange seems more reasonable.

What I meant by "augment it" was "add a feature such that the principles they laid out still hold". That's why I emphasized how this system would still disallow microing. The point of this idea is to work within the framework, both of philosophy and of mechanics, that we know so far.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

This thread's too good to fall off the front page.

I like it. It would be cool if you could have senior military advisors/generals lay out basic plans for accomplishing these critical objectives. You could give it an approval or veto the suggested plans. Everything else falls to the generals to carry it out. It's not unheard of for high-ranking military officials to let rulers know what they are up to during this time.

Example:

Ambrose Burnside's attack towards Fredericksburg during the Civil War. Lincoln had replaced McClellan with Burnside and wanted him to continue the push into Virginia. Some accounts say Burnside didn't really think a direct approach was a good plan, preferring instead for a sort of flanking approach downriver, one which McClellan suggested as he advised Burnside before leaving, but Lincoln pushed Burnside to carry out the direct approach.

From https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/why-fredericksburg.htm

There were challenges to the Fredericksburg movement, especially the question of how the army would get across the Rappahannock River. Regardless, Burnside was confident. Burnside telegraphed his idea of moving to Fredericksburg to both Lincoln and General-in-Chief Henry Halleck.

McClellan reviewed the Army of the Potomac one last time on November 10. Some soldiers cheered the general who led them for almost a year and a half; others cried. McClellan and his staff boarded a train and left the army on November 11.

On November 14, Halleck sent Burnside a response:

“The President has just assented to your plan. He thinks it will succeed if you move rapidly; otherwise not.”

By the time Burnside got this approval, McClellan was gone. Ready or not, the Army of the Potomac was now Ambrose Burnside’s responsibility. Roughly forty miles to the southeast of Warrenton, the city of Fredericksburg was about to become the focus of an intense struggle. It was there that Burnside would succeed or fail.

Something like this would be a good balance. It would probably involve maybe just a little bit of RNG, but mostly depend on your general's traits on the ground.

Gameplay-wise: If the AI fails to achieve its objectives, the player couldn't simply blame the AI. After all, they gave approval for the plan.

 

[Yaitz331]

This thread's too good to fall off the front page.

I'm going to rewrite this whole proposal once the Battles DD comes out, both to elaborate and to add. There's stuff I could add (such as how I feel this proposal fits with the design pillars of warfare), but I'm going to want to rewrite this proposal after the Battles DD anyway, so I'll do that then too.

I like it. It would be cool if you could have senior military advisors/generals lay out basic plans for accomplishing these critical objectives. You could give it an approval or veto the suggested plans. Everything else falls to the generals to carry it out. It's not unheard of for high-ranking military officials to let rulers know what they are up to during this time.

Something like this would be a good balance. It would probably involve maybe just a little bit of RNG, but mostly depend on your general's traits on the ground.

Gameplay-wise: If the AI fails to achieve its objectives, the player couldn't simply blame the AI. After all, they gave approval for the plan.

I like the idea, but it depends on the level of abstraction battles will have. This is why I'm waiting until the Battles DD to elaborate my proposal; there isn't really enough information yet on the basic construction of actual combat to have detailed proposals like this.

 

[Testeria]

Here’s my suggestion.

I'm highly opposed to any "system" that's only raison d'etre is to hurt some players' style of play. Games should be generally made to be more fun, not less fun.

 

[Kovax]

Rather than specifying a physical location on the map as a target, one could also assign a type of target, and allow the generals to prioritize within those types of targets. Such targets could include:

The enemy capital (an actual location, which by itself would go a long way toward ending the war, but gives no specific means of reaching it)
Ports (there might be several, and the order would not target any specific port, but would attempt to affect the enemy's ability to import materials)
Resources (the generals would go after high-value resource provinces or items in short supply, to cripple enemy industry or alleviate domestic shortages)
Manpower (the generals would prioritize urban centers and high-population areas to reduce the enemy's ability to replace losses or raise new units)
Industry (manufacturing would be prioritized, to grind the opposing economy to a halt or protect your own)
Transportation (rivers and rails, cutting enemy supply lines or protecting and extending your own supply lines)
Claims (the generals would prioritize the disputed regions, because it's easier to demand something that you already de facto possess)

You could assign an overall target for the front, and then give the individual generals offensive or defensive orders, so they'd either attack those types of targets, or defend your own. Alternatively, you could assign an overall offensive or defensive order for the entire front, and then give each of the generals one of the above-listed priorities. Either way, this has both advantages and disadvantages over assigning a physical location as an objective.

That allows some overall control of the war, without directing any of the actual military units against specific provinces (other than the capital, which might be quite distant).

 

[Yaitz331]

I'm highly opposed to any "system" that's only raison d'etre is to hurt some players' style of play. Games should be generally made to be more fun, not less fun.

Take this up with the devs, not me. This suggestion is designed to enhance the player agency of the already existing system while adhering to the design pillars they have already laid out.

For what it's worth, I don't think the point of the new system is to prevent microing, I think it's to render the entire concept of microing obsolete. It's like complaining that Minecraft hurts your ability to shoot guns; that just isn't part of the game.

Rather than specifying a physical location on the map as a target, one could also assign a type of target, and allow the generals to prioritize within those types of targets. Such targets could include:

The enemy capital (an actual location, which by itself would go a long way toward ending the war, but gives no specific means of reaching it)
Ports (there might be several, and the order would not target any specific port, but would attempt to affect the enemy's ability to import materials)
Resources (the generals would go after high-value resource provinces or items in short supply, to cripple enemy industry or alleviate domestic shortages)
Manpower (the generals would prioritize urban centers and high-population areas to reduce the enemy's ability to replace losses or raise new units)
Industry (manufacturing would be prioritized, to grind the opposing economy to a halt or protect your own)
Transportation (rivers and rails, cutting enemy supply lines or protecting and extending your own supply lines)
Claims (the generals would prioritize the disputed regions, because it's easier to demand something that you already de facto possess)

You could assign an overall target for the front, and then give the individual generals offensive or defensive orders, so they'd either attack those types of targets, or defend your own. Alternatively, you could assign an overall offensive or defensive order for the entire front, and then give each of the generals one of the above-listed priorities. Either way, this has both advantages and disadvantages over assigning a physical location as an objective.

That allows some overall control of the war, without directing any of the actual military units against specific provinces (other than the capital, which might be quite distant).

This would be a middle ground between my suggestion and the already existing system, and I would be fine with it. This idea would still be an improvement of the existing system. I will, however, continue to advocate for my idea, since my entire point is to increase player agency while sticking to the existing design pillars, and I think my idea provides more player agency.

 

[Testeria]

For what it's worth, I don't think the point of the new system is to prevent microing, I think it's to render the entire concept of microing obsolete.

No, they are just trying to remove the part of the game that AI is worst at.

 

[grommile]

No, they are just trying to remove the part of the game that AI is worst at.

Sounds eminently sensible to me.

 

[Yaitz331]

No, they are just trying to remove the part of the game that AI is worst at.

In what way is that "hurting some players' style of play"? It's replacing an element of the game, not giving debuffs for some action.

 

[Kovax]

In what way is that "hurting some players' style of play"? It's replacing an element of the game, not giving debuffs for some action.

It isn't "hurting" some players' style of play or replacing an element of the game; it's removing it from the game completely.

 

[Sarmatian]

The precondition for this entire brainstorm to make sense would be that features like the Mississippi river have an actual effect, ie. that the game tracks goods from their point of origin and that the cost of internal transportation (both in terms of time and price) is taken into consideration.

Has that been confirmed or at least hinted?

 

[grommile]

that the game tracks goods from their point of origin and that the cost of internal transportation (both in terms of time and price) is taken into consideration.

The availability and price of goods in a state is determined by what it produces locally, how much access it has to goods produced elsewhere, and so forth.

For obvious reasons (running at an acceptable speed on computers that private citizens can reasonably be expected to own), it doesn't run an exhaustive simulation of the shipping of goods from end to end.

Market access is limited sequentially by Infrastructure (i.e. if state A has good Infrastructure but the only route to the rest of the market is through a dismal underdeveloped backwater state B, A's market access will be capped by B's Infrastructure).

I believe, but can't be bothered to check right now because I'd have to wade through the economic dev diaries and the dev responses thereto, that major rivers contribute to Infrastructure.

 

[Sarmatian]

The availability and price of goods in a state is determined by what it produces locally, how much access it has to goods produced elsewhere, and so forth.

For obvious reasons (running at an acceptable speed on computers that private citizens can reasonably be expected to own), it doesn't run an exhaustive simulation of the shipping of goods from end to end.

Market access is limited sequentially by Infrastructure (i.e. if state A has good Infrastructure but the only route to the rest of the market is through a dismal underdeveloped backwater state B, A's market access will be capped by B's Infrastructure).

I believe, but can't be bothered to check right now because I'd have to wade through the economic dev diaries and the dev responses thereto, that major rivers contribute to Infrastructure.

I still have trouble agreeing that it would be worth the investment to circumvent a -X% modifier for a localized area. So, I'm not holding my breath that anything like suggestion in the OP will be included.

Maybe way down the line, in a DLC