Battle displays

[unmerged(86432)]

Developing battles in the game will make the military campaigns far more immersing. It shall mean that events and tactics in battle play a far bigger part in strategic plans. You can see where a fight needs reinforcing; you know what battles are likely to turn nasty soon, and which need support. I don't mean creating a full battle scene where you can command your units (such as in RTW); I mean giving a display of how the battle is going, perhaps with provisions to order changes of plans. A battle map such as the image below gives an idea.

It isn't usable for a game: the arrows are unnecessary, as are the labels of troops, but it gives an idea of the battle situation. Something like it--mapping out troop positions--could be a very useful indicator of how different troops and generals perform, and could affect plans for future battles. It would be a display you can look at when you want information on the progress of battles and campaigns. I've imagined a sort of pop-up display; this image from Wikipedia gives an idea.

Obviously you couldn't view battles from different times (this shows a sequence of battles from Hannibal's campaign), but pop-up displays that show the state of different battles might bear resemblance to the image. A set-up like this could be made even more interactive if you established battle plans (ordering aggressive, flanking, defensive, etc. tactics), and even change them during a battle (order an army's retreat, or a change of tactics). This adds an extra level of immersion to battles and campaigns that makes the game deeper. It allows a better view of where reinforcements are wanted; and it adds a extra level of thought to military campaigns. Particularly for a newcomer, this could make the game more exciting.

 

[Zanza]

I very much doubt that Paradox will give you any tactical choices for the battles.

 

[unmerged(9599)]

I very much doubt that Paradox will give you any tactical choices for the battles.

What they might do and what I'm hoping for is that they give us tactical events ala HOI2 that display our tactics.

So if you are defending in the battle you get a tactical event defence with some bonuses for defence but some other problems for the other side. But if your org goes down when defending you get the rout event where some of your division flee formation and suffer strength losses.

Or if your cavalry are charging you get the charge event with organisation penalties for both sides and strength penalties for the enemy.

The list can go on. They would be similar to HOI2 combat events.

 

[performer]

There are just too much battles in Paradox Games. Such an engine would make the battles boring.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

To be fair, depending on the level of abstraction chosen, something like those cut-outs shown in post #1 could be matched up vs. the EU3 combat engine - it already has the front line and flanks and it represents them graphically in the battle display with two lines facing eachother. Assuming that that system of regiment positioning (based on inf/cav/art) is tweaked a bit for the new unit/regiment types available, you could come pretty close to that sort of cut-outs via a mere change of graphical representation of the current regiment lineup.

That wouldn't allow you to change tactics as a player and might not actually teach you anything, but it would look better than the EU3 representation.

If battle events HoI2 style were added as náraiC suggests, you could get some truly amazing cutouts.

That said, it would probably be a considerable amount of work for what is, in the end, of marginal utility if you cannot yourself affect it, but it would be great to look at.

 

[Burning]

That said, it would probably be a considerable amount of work for what is, in the end, of marginal utility if you cannot yourself affect it, but it would be great to look at.

you _could_ affect it easily, but not directly.
by having a defensive leader, you would get a bonus while defending.
when a "cavalry leader" is in charge of your army, it could gain advantages on breakthrough and so on.
this could be combined with sliders like we know them in EU3.
infantry <-> cavalry
quality <-> quantity
land <-> naval
discipline and moral would all play their role.

 

[SirGrotius]

Granted your diagrams above are beautiful, but when one finds themselves engaged in tactical deployments of that level one might be somewhat bored. I know in RTW (will the comparisons ever end?) I became thoroughly bored throughout tactical battles, as I always found myself doing the same damn thing, cavalry to the flanks, infantry in the middle, velites up front to soften up the senseless hordes.

Long story short, I wouldn't hold your breath for this feature as Paradox games are known for their "Grand strategy" which means national-level control, and the Rome game seems to be implementing more character/rule intrigues into the mix a la Crusader Kings.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

you _could_ affect it easily, but not directly.
by having a defensive leader, you would get a bonus while defending.
when a "cavalry leader" is in charge of your army, it could gain advantages on breakthrough and so on.
this could be combined with sliders like we know them in EU3.
infantry <-> cavalry
quality <-> quantity
land <-> naval
discipline and moral would all play their role.

Or rather, as traits of individual characters. Although this has already been invented by the Total War series, it IS a good representation of the different abilities of commanders, where one performs very well with cavalry, while the other is an expert at certain kinds of terrain, or sieges etc.. Of course, Paradox could do this quite alot better, with their experience from CK traits and characters.

So instead of having a 6/5/6/2 Hannibal, you will have a set of traits like "Brilliant tactician", "Cavalry commander", "Logistical genious" and so forth.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Or rather, as traits of individual characters. Although this has already been invented by the Total War series, it IS a good representation of the different abilities of commanders, where one performs very well with cavalry, while the other is an expert at certain kinds of terrain, or sieges etc.. Of course, Paradox could do this quite alot better, with their experience from CK traits and characters.

So instead of having a 6/5/6/2 Hannibal, you will have a set of traits like "Brilliant tactician", "Cavalry commander", "Logistical genious" and so forth.

HoI had a similar system, so yes, I agree it makes a lot of sense. It also ties very neatly into the character mechanic, possibly allowing characters to gain (or lose!) traits according to their successes and failures.

 

[hildoceras]

To be fair, depending on the level of abstraction chosen, something like those cut-outs shown in post #1 could be matched up vs. the EU3 combat engine - it already has the front line and flanks and it represents them graphically in the battle display with two lines facing eachother. Assuming that that system of regiment positioning (based on inf/cav/art) is tweaked a bit for the new unit/regiment types available, you could come pretty close to that sort of cut-outs via a mere change of graphical representation of the current regiment lineup.

I'd appreciate a system as in Empire in Arms : choice of a tactic opposed to the choice of your opponents tactic (for instance outflank vs echelon) and then you apply the bonus/malus (bonus for echelon in this case)

 

[unmerged(7537)]

I'd appreciate a system as in Empire in Arms : choice of a tactic opposed to the choice of your opponents tactic (for instance outflank vs echelon) and then you apply the bonus/malus (bonus for echelon in this case)

They could even make it so that players would set up a commander's preferred tactic beforehand, to spare the player the tediousness of having to choose for each minor battle occurring in the game.

Maybe even modify the boni/mali through army technology or national ideas, so a further advanced army would have more powerful maneuvers, or certain ideas allowed e.g. more powerful cavalry charges, or better chance to flank opponents etc.

 

[unmerged(49372)]

Makes good sense to me, if you are commanding Roman legions, your choice of tactics would be different fighting a phalanx or steppe horsemen. I would love to see the traits like in HOI to enable you to develop a brilliant commander.

 

[Bismark776]

Makes good sense to me, if you are commanding Roman legions, your choice of tactics would be different fighting a phalanx or steppe horsemen. I would love to see the traits like in HOI to enable you to develop a brilliant commander.

Although if you're a stubborn old man and all you've ever fought against are greek phalanx style armies then its likely that you would apply the same tactics when you encounter those steppe horsemen and would, likely, be handily defeated. Well ok, maybe you wouldn't do this because you're smart and have hindsight etc. etc., but this happened often in history. Therefore, if general's gain traits to represent experience, generals who fight one type of opponent a lot, and fight others rarely or never, should gain traits that help them against that type but severely penalize them against many other types.

 

[Iudex]

Therefore, if general's gain traits to represent experience, generals who fight one type of opponent a lot, and fight others rarely or never, should gain traits that help them against that type but severely penalize them against many other types.

It would certainly add something to the game. Since you'll have to think twice who to send against what. It would be nice if some form of this experience is also added to the troops themselves. I mean like if you're a soldier who's been fighting Gauls all his life and he faces a phalanx for the first time

 

[unmerged(49372)]

Although if you're a stubborn old man and all you've ever fought against are greek phalanx style armies then its likely that you would apply the same tactics when you encounter those steppe horsemen and would, likely, be handily defeated. Well ok, maybe you wouldn't do this because you're smart and have hindsight etc. etc., but this happened often in history. Therefore, if general's gain traits to represent experience, generals who fight one type of opponent a lot, and fight others rarely or never, should gain traits that help them against that type but severely penalize them against many other types.

That makes a lot of sense, there's a huge difference between someone who is tactically flexible and who isn't. In that era, there were no war colleges to train future generals, any deviation from the commonly accepted tactics were often improvised on the spot by a gifted general. The ability to think on your feet would have been invaluable for a commander of that era.

 

[unmerged(86432)]

Granted your diagrams above are beautiful, but when one finds themselves engaged in tactical deployments of that level one might be somewhat bored. I know in RTW (will the comparisons ever end?) I became thoroughly bored throughout tactical battles, as I always found myself doing the same damn thing, cavalry to the flanks, infantry in the middle, velites up front to soften up the senseless hordes.

The displays aren't giving you battles you constantly control, they are there to give information about your campaign. With an interactive display, you'd set your plans for the battle (simple instructions, such as aggressive, defensive, flank, break-through), and leave the battle to unfold. Since you can check on the battle, you can tell how it's going, giving you further information for the campaign, such as whether (and where) the battle is going to want reinforcing, or whether it's worth ordering a retreat. The drain on time would be minimal, but the extra information could be very important.