A Suggestion on Trench Warfare

[Darkrenown]

. Also entrenchments werent really destroyed during the battles because no matter who won they were always deepened and redug in better ways afterwards.

If the dug in value was reduced due to damage in a battle it would go back up again anyway after the battle, nicely simulating this

 

[Darkrenown]

ur trying to twist my words into something i dont agree with...

Yes, I am trying to twist your words. It wasn't a misunderstanding due to your post being unclear at all, it is my evil propaganda. Clearly something that needs to be redug afterwards was never destroyed during the battle, I see that now.

 

[Darkrenown]

It could be like in Risk, with cards showing different types of attack and move options that you could pick. Maybe in the next game.

Um, Risk doesn't have that.

 

[Darkrenown]

I was referring to the PC game, and there was no dice involved.

Even then Risk doesn't have "cards showing different types of attack and move options that you could pick.".

 

[Darkrenown]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/puzzle/risk/screens.html?page=4

What the...? My Risk looks nothing like that

 

[Darkrenown]

i'd also like to see a "push" option for a battle where as either the attacker or the defender you "attack" the enemy lines trying to push them back or break through. THis would highten the casulties in the area and would create hot spots. You will have to allow for single division retreats that DONT effect the overal battle except that that division is no longer a factor in the battle. (ie you dont lose the bloody battle). This allows for you to concentrate your forces for an attack and push an existing battle. Allowing you to select which divisions of your total in the battle will push.

While I like the idea of needing high troop density for higher levels of entrenchment I have to disagree with the above idea. It's not that I dislike that idea either, it's just that it's below the radar in Vic. You aren't a general commanding a battle, you're the leader of a country (or, at least, the power behind the throne for a series of leaders), you just tell your generals what province you want them to take and they fight the battle for you.

 

[Darkrenown]

yes it does

It turns out I have Risk2 which is just a pc version of the boardgame. Risk is some crazy new system.

 

[Darkrenown]

PC RISK:rofl:What's bloody sense in playing a game like Risk in PC?

Aparently it's totally different from the board version.

 

[Darkrenown]

The only type of conflict that you can hope to reproduce in Victoria is WW1. For most of the period, the combat engine is a joke.

It's not so bad since players tend to create WWI style fronts and the AI reacts much more to WWI/ACW style defeats than having an army defeated.

 

[Chaingun]

While of course most of these suggestions above are nice, a quick solution in response to the original poster's problem is to simply decrease maximum defence values at different tech levels. Indeed this would prevent the uttermost ahistorical casulty ratios he describes to some extent.