Army supply

[geogus]

Hi guys

In almost all paradox games, once a military unit is created it will be fully funcional and in full supply but for moral issues ( except maybe for fuel and equipament in hoiv, that comes to my mind)


However, any military unit needs to constant supply, new ammo, new weapons, food, uniforms, etc.

Victoria is a game about market economics, where every bullet that is fired, any ship that is built, every weapon that is wielded have to be built through the economic market simulator.

Being that the case, wouldnt armies need a constant supply of ammo, art shells, weapons, food, uniforms and so far, that the nation must provide by importation or production in order to units to fight with full efficiency?

 

[Niko92]

In Vicky 2 this is already a case. You have to provide a regular supply of goods to your army

 

[The Goldfinch]

In Vicky 2 this is already a case. You have to provide a regular supply of goods to your army

What Vic 2 does not provide however, is the Impact of encirclement on army supply. This is my number one on military wishlist.

Encircling enemy army, and cutting off its supply should result in almost certain annihilation

 

[[Q]uik]

What Vic 2 does not provide however, is the Impact of encirclement on army supply. This is my number one on military wishlist.

Encircling enemy army, and cutting off its supply should result in almost certain annihilation

100%. I did NOT enjoy how simplified the military aspect of Vicky 2 felt. Vicky 1 had hard trench-like warfare, and Vicky 2 felt... like Europa Universalis: Flimsy and weird, setting up lines to defend your country was nigh on impossible.

Bring back Vicky 1 combat but modernized.

 

[Bradley Hutson]

I just hope there is some sort of logistics system

 

[Niko92]

100%. I did NOT enjoy how simplified the military aspect of Vicky 2 felt. Vicky 1 had hard trench-like warfare, and Vicky 2 felt... like Europa Universalis: Flimsy and weird, setting up lines to defend your country was nigh on impossible.

Bring back Vicky 1 combat but modernized.

Was it that different though? The only difference I remember is that if your army loses a battle and all neighbouring provinces are controlled by enemies, they get stackwiped. That frankly was a stupid and a very exploitable mechanic. 2nd was how strength worked, as you had to manually reinforce troops at the cost of organization, which again is a horrible leftover from HoI1.

Vicky 2 still gives you frontlines late game simply due to the sheer size of armies.

 

[[Q]uik]

Was it that different though? The only difference I remember is that if your army loses a battle and all neighbouring provinces are controlled by enemies, they get stackwiped. That frankly was a stupid and a very exploitable mechanic. 2nd was how strength worked, as you had to manually reinforce troops at the cost of organization, which again is a horrible leftover from HoI1.

Vicky 2 still gives you frontlines late game simply due to the sheer size of armies.

Oh yeah, late-game for sure. But in Vicky 1 you basically couldn't go 1-1 because of dug-in, and the dug-in was such an important mechanic - so you set up trench lines from the get go and had to utilize mechanics like attacking from multiple fronts, or battleships attacking from the shorelines in order to break through. It was a much much slower and more tedious, but way more tactical and IMO enjoyable experience. Vicky 2 was, because of the insane nature of dice-rolls, attacking from different fronts being way less valuable etc.
Vicky 2 was a chaotic mess. I did not like it at all, because the idea of "front-lines" and slow-moving warfare was gone, replaced by a much faster paced system where dugin in the early levels of combat basically did nothing, so doomstacking in the early game became much more effective, and... to my own opinion the detrement of the game.
Warfare in Vicky 2 is imo unbearable until very late into the game.

Edit: Not to mention one of the biggest reasons that trenchlines were important in vicky 1 was that if you get completly surrounded, you're dead. Vicky 1's battles were much much closer to HOI than EUIV, but i think vicky 2 moved way closer to EUIV than HOI.
Also, terrain was such an incredibly important factor in vicky 1 but in vicky 2 turned way less important.

 

[The Goldfinch]

Was it that different though? The only difference I remember is that if your army loses a battle and all neighbouring provinces are controlled by enemies, they get stackwiped. That frankly was a stupid and a very exploitable mechanic. 2nd was how strength worked, as you had to manually reinforce troops at the cost of organization, which again is a horrible leftover from HoI1.

Vicky 2 still gives you frontlines late game simply due to the sheer size of armies.

Late game frontlines are extremely ridiculous mechanic in Vic 2. You leave one province empty, and they just pour inside your land. Then you can close the gap in frontline and make them encircled - it wont do anything. You just have to go back and forth chasing those encircled armies, until, after 17th battle, they might finally perish

 

[Niko92]

Oh yeah, late-game for sure. But in Vicky 1 you basically couldn't go 1-1 because of dug-in, and the dug-in was such an important mechanic - so you set up trench lines from the get go and had to utilize mechanics like attacking from multiple fronts, or battleships attacking from the shorelines in order to break through. It was a much much slower and more tedious, but way more tactical and IMO enjoyable experience. Vicky 2 was, because of the insane nature of dice-rolls, attacking from different fronts being way less valuable etc.
Vicky 2 was a chaotic mess. I did not like it at all, because the idea of "front-lines" and slow-moving warfare was gone, replaced by a much faster paced system where dugin in the early levels of combat basically did nothing, so doomstacking in the early game became much more effective, and... to my own opinion the detrement of the game.
Warfare in Vicky 2 is imo unbearable until very late into the game.

Edit: Not to mention one of the biggest reasons that trenchlines were important in vicky 1 was that if you get completly surrounded, you're dead. Vicky 1's battles were much much closer to HOI than EUIV, but i think vicky 2 moved way closer to EUIV than HOI.
Also, terrain was such an incredibly important factor in vicky 1 but in vicky 2 turned way less important.

Did Vicky 1 also have the HoI1 style movement where you would lose org each day of moving? At least in HoI1 that also impacted offensives a lot, especially in bad terrain. It is almost 10 years since I played Vicky 1, so my memories of the combat aren't that exact.

Late game frontlines are extremely ridiculous mechanic in Vic 2. You leave one province empty, and they just pour inside your land. Then you can close the gap in frontline and make them encircled - it wont do anything. You just have to go back and forth chasing those encircled armies, until, after 17th battle, they might finally perish

But you don't have to leave provinces empty, you can advance the imaginary frontline like a frontline. So if province X borders two enemy provinces, you split the stack and move each into one, this leaves no gaps and you still have a solid frontline, albeit slightly weaker at one point.

 

[The Goldfinch]

Did Vicky 1 also have the HoI1 style movement where you would lose org each day of moving? At least in HoI1 that also impacted offensives a lot, especially in bad terrain. It is almost 10 years since I played Vicky 1, so my memories of the combat aren't that exact.


But you don't have to leave provinces empty, you can advance the imaginary frontline like a frontline. So if province X borders two enemy provinces, you split the stack and move each into one, this leaves no gaps and you still have a solid frontline, albeit slightly weaker at one point.

I know, this doesnt change the fact that Vic 2 warfare is just wrong.

Good things about it:
1. Soldiers die = pops die
2. Realistic growth of armies in timeframe
3. Equipment productions

Bad things about it:
1. Encirclement does nothing
2. Having to manually occupy provinces
3. Extremely stupid supply limit system allowing you to move gigantic armies through Kongo etc
4. Battalions instead of divisions/Korps
5. EU system of battle in one province leads to sometimes ridiculously huge battles as you keep sending armies to one battle for months, and it sometimes grows to 3 mln vs 6 mln etc