Army movement

[unmerged(61634)]

Well, I've read the AARs (especially the on-going Macedonian one), and I've noticed that armies can't move through foreign territory at will. The Macedonians declared war on the Seleucids, but couldn't walk through Pontus, and had to take boats. Why was this so? In history, if Macedonia's navy was small and the army needed to walk through Pontus, the soldiers would have followed that route. In doing so, Macedonia wouldn't have declared war on Pontus, either; there would have been negotiations at the border, and then they would have either been granted access, or had that access contested by frequent raids.


Why doesn't the game allow you to march through enemy territory? It could simply institute a penalty to relations and attrition, no? The current situation doesn't seem realistic. There are numerous occasions when armies traveled through neutral lands without declaring war. Conflicts may have broken out during such travels, but other times the neutral power was quite happy to let them through as quickly as possible.

If you need a specific example, just remember Xenophon's Anabasis. He marches through many different states. Some of them are in direct conflict with the 10,000, others are simply skirmishing around them, and others help them. Think of the people in Kurdestan, and compare them to the people whom the Athenian slave speaks to (the people near the black sea), and you will notice the variety of responses Rome could implement when armies try to cross neutral ground.

 

[unmerged(80821)]

you will most likely be able to diplomatically ask for military access like in every other pdox game (except for CK I think)

 

[Bleedinbob]

You can ask but rarely do you receive access in previous titles unless you had good relations.

I agree with Grumblefish on this one.

 

[HolisticGod]

Grumblefish.

It's a necessary abstraction. Ancient armies did in fact respect sovereignty of neutral parties because of the danger to supply and communication lines otherwise, not to speak of the consequences if said neutral party took it badly. The Roman Empire did what it wanted, I'll grant you, but that's not the rule.

And to model all the nuances you're talking about would be very complicated (attrition levels, foraging, harassment, passive versus active resistance by the neutral party, etc.) to reach more or less the same result.

And in the AAR in question, Pontus wouldn't have made any difference. You still need boats to cross the Bosporus, unless it has a pansy walking straight like EU II (let's swim it, boys!)

 

[unmerged(61634)]

I don't think it would be hard to implement, and it's hardly the exception to the rule. While it was preferable not to have to walk through neutral territory, it seemed a common enough occurrence during times of war, especially when the war was between distant places (any attack I can think of by Greeks on Persia, for example). Here is what I suggest:

1. Armies can walk anywhere they like, but entering the territory of foreign states without their permission results in a relationship and bad-boy penalty. Furthermore, attrition is slightly higher, and the longer you are in their territory, the greater your relationship/bad-boy penalty grows. Furthermore, the state that has been intruded upon should be alerted.

2. If a foreign army is on your soil, and you are not at war with them, you can attach an army to their army. Simply put, when your army is in the same province as their army, you click a button that says "attach".

Attachment gives the following effects:

A. Your army moves with their army.

B. When you click your army, you select one of three attitudes for your army:

i. Conflict orientated: Your army literally attacks the enemy army, as though you were at war. This should carry suitable relationship penalties, if not bad-boy penalties, and may give the victim casus belli.

ii. Raiding orientated: Heightened attrition for both yourself and the enemy (moreso for them, however), and your relationship suffers a tad (but not your bad boy).

iii. Escort orientated: Your army just follows their army at a distance. It's more a safety measure than anything else.


These 3 settings represent the different behaviour I have read about in the Classics. Xenophon experienced all three (conflict with the Persians, raiding from the mountain tribes in Kurdestan, and escort from the people by the Black Sea), and they are attested to in Plutarch's Lives, as well.

All this requires is a button to be added. It doesn't have to be a button, either, as you could just right-click on the intruding enemy as he enters, and a little tab could come up like in HOI2, and you could select an attitude for your troops to take in relation to the outsiders.

 

[HolisticGod]

Grumblefish,

All good ideas, but complicated to implement. You're talking about brand new diplomatic and army functions. If they were to do it, I think you'd also need to set the attitude of the army moving through neutral territory.

It's a minor matter that works pretty well as it is. And it's certainly better this way than in CK where an army can march in the lands of coreligionists (and, at one time, anybody) at will. And this is only an issue in multiplayer, where you can threaten the third party for passage.

In singleplayer, we don't need anything to make life easier on the player.

 

[unmerged(61634)]

Perhaps they might change the military access situation? As it stands today, most nations will never grant you military access, even though you could crush them like bugs. However, if they changed it so nations with tiny war-scores granted temporary military access, for perhaps a couple of months, to the major powers, perhaps it would work out better. Such grants would seem historically accurate, as neutral towns and cities would set up markets for traveling armies as they made their way to enemy land.

As it stands, it's frustrating to be standing a couple of provinces away from your enemy, in the knowledge that you can't get to him unless (a) the neutral party grants you access (which you know will never happen), or (b) you declare war on the neutral party, thus attacking an otherwise peaceful state.

 

[HolisticGod]

Grumblefish,

Temporary military access would be fantastic. It'd also solve the problem of the AI granting and never canceling it.

The AI does grant it in EU II, though, provided relations are high enough. Almost always.

 

[.Spartan]

I agree temp access would be great. There could even be a fee associated with it for the granter. Although I like additional diplomacy options suggested by Grumble.

 

[Calantyr]

Being able to march your armies through neutral states in both singleplayer or multiplayer would be far too easy to exploit.

One example, of which there are many, just march through one nation to another, then with no warning declare war. Next day you can have thousands of troops pouring into their land with no chance to react. As long as you have enough manpower, the declare war button then becomes the "I win" button.

In short, I prefer the existing method of granting military access. At least then you get *some* warning of potential and possible troop movements.

 

[Secret Master]

One example, of which there are many, just march through one nation to another, then with no warning declare war. Next day you can have thousands of troops pouring into their land with no chance to react. As long as you have enough manpower, the declare war button then becomes the "I win" button.

I think this is the biggest reason for the military access procedure. To add to your post, in EU3, you take a big stability hit for DOWing someone while you have military access with them. Furthermore, the AI simply will not give military access to anyone it does not have excellent relations with, preventing some really horrible abuse.

Temporary access would be great. I hadn't even thought of that as a possibility.

 

[Featauril]

Savoy tried to pull that one on France during the italian wars.

France was sending an army (I think it was under Louis XIII?) to contest the spanish in northern Italy, and the duke of Savoy tried to impose exorbitant demands to allow them to pass 'the key to Italy'.

The king (Louis the XIIIth?) grew impatiant and they just stormed their way past the Savoyard army, dealing a big blow to the prestige (and surely ego!) of the man who claimed to allow who came and who went in italy according to his whims.



Sadly, in Eu3 you have the choice between getting a treaty, which can take a couple of months of bringing relations up, or declaring war without a cassus belli more often then not. It'd be nice if you could force your way through, being in some sort of 'semi-war' where you could not actually demand territories. Sadly, it would be dumb to add new code just for this situation.

 

[HolisticGod]

Jason,

Perhaps the greatest joy in EU II multiplayer is telling an enemy in the ruins of his defeat that he forgot to revoke your military access. Of course, the inverse of a great joy...

Speaking of, in a couple of weeks, assuming (assuming) it's playable, FAL and I are going to start an MP test game. Would you be interested?

 

[Secret Master]

Jason,

Perhaps the greatest joy in EU II multiplayer is telling an enemy in the ruins of his defeat that he forgot to revoke your military access. Of course, the inverse of a great joy...

Speaking of, in a couple of weeks, assuming (assuming) it's playable, FAL and I are going to start an MP test game. Would you be interested?

Yes, if both of you live in the US (I've had a hard time coordinating MP games lately with our European counterparts due to scheduling conflicts) and if I have the same version of the game you do (not sure when I will have a regular copy of the game, and I'm not clear if beta copies, even if patched the same, will work and play well with others).

I have to warn you that I'm really not very good at multiplayer, so don't expect me to be a difficult opponent once you folks get up to speed.

 

[HolisticGod]

Jason,

FAL's a beta too, but you'll have an advantage over me. I haven't touched even EU III since shortly after its release. And while we've been playing EU II in multiplayer for... Oh my, seven years? I discovered in our couple of EU III games that the one does not necessarily follow from the other.

I live in the US. The vast majority of remaining EU II players are European, but some of them have an extraordinary capacity for sleep deprivation and I expect a large number of Americans to return to the fold provided Rome delivers. And there are always Sundays, the traditional day of mixing.

My ICQ number is 273839083.