-
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.
Would it be impossible to actually have a system based like a tree?
You click on an army, and get stats for it, commander, morale, strength but also you get a clickable icon for every corps in the army. When that Corp icon is clicked you get stats for commander, morale, strength and so on for that corps, but also an clickable icon for every division in that corps..... you undertand what Im getting at ? All the way down to regiments. And when transfering regiments/divisions/corps to another regiments/divisions/corps/army, just click and drag......
You click on an army, and get stats for it, commander, morale, strength but also you get a clickable icon for every corps in the army. When that Corp icon is clicked you get stats for commander, morale, strength and so on for that corps, but also an clickable icon for every division in that corps..... you undertand what Im getting at ? All the way down to regiments. And when transfering regiments/divisions/corps to another regiments/divisions/corps/army, just click and drag......
There was an old wargame called civil war on the American civil war that had such a system. The armies were presented in a tree like structure and you could move units from regiments to whole corps just by clicking on the structure you wanted to move. You coud also assign leaders directly to the units. Attach or detach a corps brigade or division from its parent structure....
Overall much more detailed than the current HOI system and not too heavy to handle.... As long as you like to deal with the organisation of your army
The main problem is if the program can handle so many units in a real time game and run properly with WWI size armies.
Otherwise as far as gameplay was concerned it ran pretty smoothly and once the structures were set up they remained in place. However for those that are allergic to orders of battle, that's not a solution.
Well, both could be automated (in case of HoI aircraft, automation is the norm), and sending merchants isn't too much micromanagment in the first place.
It is a quite good idea now that I think of it more. Just as long as you don't have to actually build the whole damn armies manually (ie. you can order the computer to build a corps with 3 divisions, one with 13 infantry regiments one with 9 infantry regiments and one with 6 cavalry regiments). Of course, dependeing on how many historical leaders you have, assinging them could get tedious.
Last edited:
Yep, remember that. It was published by Empire. Unfortunately the "army tree" was the best thing in the entire game. The rest was buggy and pretty crap...
I have never played the EU series. What size does EU2 use for military units?
EnPeaSea
EnPeaSea
The EU system is very simplified. You build an army and can fill with everything from 1000 men and up...
Thanks for the info frodon. I like the option that Väinö mentioned about building understrength divisions. That might be a good compromise.
I wonder how it will work for small groups of people like the Native Americans. Will there be divisions of indian warriors in the western US?
EnPeaSea
I wonder how it will work for small groups of people like the Native Americans. Will there be divisions of indian warriors in the western US?
EnPeaSea
Yes the AI was pretty much inexistent in that game, otherwise there were plenty of good ideas. The "army tree" was the only thing that made me play a couple of gamesthough. There was also a tactical system that looked like a forerunner of Sid Meier's games. But like in many games a huge potential but no support and no new developments. However should they make a number II I'd definitely go for it.
This "army tree" thing still remains an outsanding feature IMHO, that I would like to see incorporated in Victoria and also in Hoi...
Well, I hope they will handle it better than the indians in EU2. Never liked those Indian armies, and it was even worse when the Iroquis navy suddenly arrived in european waters
In fact I think it was a forerunner. The guys behind "Civil War" had made a Waterloo game for Microprose earlier IIRC. They later made a game called Napoleon 1813 which looked very promissing but unfortunately was even more bugridden than the civilwargame...
I remember playing an old ACW game where armies were organized like that. The units you could "construct" were regiments and once they were finished you could add them to existing brigades (up to 6 regiments IIRC) or created a new one by choosing a new brigade commander to attach to an existing division and then add the new regiment. I really liked that kind of organization since it made moving armies around much easier and you could still detach smaller units for other tasks. I do hope they will implement something like that.
That's also what I suggested for HoI. For some reason I just don't seem grasp the concept used there.
how will you represent how the prussian army totally outclassed both austrians and french in this era?!?
Simple, the Prussian troops will be equiped with more advanced weapons (breechloading rifles) and better doctrine. They also had a better military rail system.
The austrians had acctually even better rifles than the Preussians.
But they couldn't use the railroad nor did they have that well trained a army.
The French had a less capable rifle.
I don't have my book on this here now so i can't look it up.
I'm almost positive that the Austrians were still using muzzel loading rifles, am I wrong
humm, in 1970, The French Rifle the Chassepot was far superior to thge German Dreyse needle rifle. time and time again German infantry was mowed down by French infantry fire.
It did not channge the outcome of the war though.