battles are beyond ridiculous now

[clykke]

Except the engine would only be a good comparison if we were talking about something like the speed of the game. Weapons modifiers are hardly as essential to the game as the functioning of the engine is to a car. Not only do people use overexagerated terms, we are now also using overexagerated metaphores.

Aside from that the proof that weapons modifiers are bugged has just been countered by a dev. Shows why data should be provided with claims because then we can either confirm or counter the conclusion. But we all know hardly anyone will anyway.

Only comparing the engine of a car to the speed of the game is rather silly. The engine is a very important part of a car, just like the combat system is important to the game. If it isn't working as intended, it's perfectly fine to call it broken. You are just nitpicking. Instead of addressing the real issues, you are attacking the use of a single word, and aren't really contributing to the discussion. The issues stay the same whether or not anyone use the word "broken".

Also, the dev did not counter anything, other than stating you get no bonus damage from tech when fighting rebels. This also applies when fighting against similarly advanced nations, but you still get a defensive modifier from other stats. This means that defense will increase over time, while offense will not. This is the issue. You can accept it as breaking or not, but the fact remains, that it has profound effects on late game combat.

Having to defeat the same low moral army 10+ times for it to finally die, cannot be intended, and warfare in late game is rather frustrating at the moment. The main challenge is to catch a constantly retreating enemy force, before it can regain even the smallest amount of morale, and not to actually defeat your opponent on the battlefield.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

Having to defeat the same low moral army 10+ times for it to finally die, cannot be intended, and warfare in late game is rather frustrating at the moment. The main challenge is to catch a constantly retreating enemy force, before it can regain even the smallest amount of morale, and not to actually defeat your opponent on the battlefield.

Which neatly leads onto the topic of my thread; morale updating only at month's end.

 

[Lakedaimon]

The dev did counter the statement that weapon damage did not change with tech. However from that we did find out that this is somewhat the case for armies with the same tech level. So things that modify it aren't useless when fighting someone that is of lower or higher tech but it is useless for fighting armies with the same tech level. It's not game breaking but it will be changed to improve the gameplay.

 

[lember]

Which neatly leads onto the topic of my thread; morale updating only at month's end.

that's probably for preformance. to make the game run as good as possible at lower end machines most things in game are calculated on a monthly base

 

[Turboflex]

Seems like the AI just needs to be programmed to treat mountain terrain with more respect. Making a priority to reach them first, back off if they don't, and leave a garrison on border mountain provinces. Not sending more than 15-20 regiments at a time into them for actual combat situations, and only doing that when they are certain they have a really good advantage (20 vs 5) and the enemy has no reserves free to easily reinforce. The AI should accept a mountain stalemate situation and not try and force it, look for other ways around instead even if it takes years.

In reality all the way from Roman times to WW2 full armies have avoided large operations in mountainous terrain except for a few like Hannibal and Napoleon which were considered exceptionally audacious. Even today we have situations like this between India & Pakistan in Kashmir.

 

[zodium]

Seems like the AI just needs to be programmed to treat mountain terrain with more respect. Making a priority to reach them first, back off if they don't, and leave a garrison on border mountain provinces. Not sending more than 15-20 regiments at a time into them for actual combat situations, and only doing that when they are certain they have a really good advantage (20 vs 5) and the enemy has no reserves free to easily reinforce. The AI should accept a mountain stalemate situation and not try and force it, look for other ways around instead even if it takes years.

In reality all the way from Roman times to WW2 full armies have avoided large operations in mountainous terrain except for a few like Hannibal and Napoleon which were considered exceptionally audacious. Even today we have situations like this between India & Pakistan in Kashmir.

This would be great for Hard mode, but probably too opaque for new players on Normal. The AI would consistently beat new players at even strength, and it wouldn't be clear to them why.

 

[Mowers]

Currently the battle resolution period appears to represent the 1885-1902 era of warfare. I think that the standard response that a battle represents a campaign is no longer a logical explanation as to the length of battles.

 

[Riidi]

Currently the battle resolution period appears to represent the 1885-1902 era of warfare. I think that the standard response that a battle represents a campaign is no longer a logical explanation as to the length of battles.

Really, it never was.

 

[geckoman1011]

It's not game breaking but it will be changed to improve the gameplay.

All we know for certain is that its going to be changed, and we cant actually be certain of that either, but its still a safe guess. Whether or not it will actually improve gameplay? Thats truly uncertain. Battles being 50% less bloody was also supposed to improve game play yet we still have nearly identical armies completely annihilating each other early game and inconsequential battles late game. From where it stands now I cant imagine it getting any worse, but I guess there is always potential. Im just being very cautious with my hopes regarding 1.3

 

[unmerged(809688)]

I don't even understand how this was considered acceptable.

My 40k stack attacks 9k guys in a mountain, with the enemy army on the other side of france. Wow, guess I shouldn't have done that! TWO MONTHS of fighting later, they get reinforced, then I get reinforced, then they get reinforced, then I get reinforced, and A FUCKING YEAR LATER we STILL have the same battle going on, except now it's 300k guys fighting each other in this mountain, in a never-ending battle between over a quarter of a million people that see massive casualties in the DOZENS every day. Dozens!

QUOTE]

it seems reasonable to me: don't forget you were in montain, combat widt was very small and thus they took a few casualties since they were defending. The problem of this patch is not combat imho