Battles shouldn't last more than a month

[Kenlin]

But there is already a skirmish phase at the beginning of a battle. Just abstract that to "skirmish and manoeuvre", if it makes you happy. You can order your men to retreat at any point, and the enemy will pursue you, which can represent a tactical retreat as a march as well as a retreat from the battlefield proper. Your changes will result in almost exactly what we have now (in CK2 at least, which is the Paradox game I know).

 

[Vohen]

But there is already a skirmish phase at the beginning of a battle. Just abstract that to "skirmish and manoeuvre", if it makes you happy. You can order your men to retreat at any point, and the enemy will pursue you, which can represent a tactical retreat as a march as well as a retreat from the battlefield proper. Your changes will result in almost exactly what we have now (in CK2 at least, which is the Paradox game I know).

CK2 is the odd one for how small scale the battles usually are (in my limited experience at least), and for how little men actually clash in comparison to other PDX games.
Even so, the skirmishing and pursuing phases are phases of actual combat, just with different unit types specialization, not the manouvering of an army with camps and scouts that precede that actual combat.
But again, it is usually a smaller problem in CK2.

 

[Daniel1312]

I meant for them to implement a way for us to mod combat.
I don't think there's a way to do that currently in any PDX game, but having the battle script laid open for us, giving the ability of adding more phases, with diverse modifiers, manipulation of dice rolls, custom length, and maybe even a battle scope for variables and such doesn't sound like something impossible to ask for.

As far as I know they usually do not make such things availible for modders. Though, we could try, yeah.

 

[Vohen]

As far as I know they usually do not make such things availible for modders. Though, we could try, yeah.

Yeah, I don't think they ever have, but I can dream, and it isn't even all that far fetched imo.

 

[Plaid Shirts]

I like this idea of having a maneuvering and skirmishing phase first. Seems a good way to have battles last awhile, while also being realistic.

 

[Jutsurai]

I like this idea of having a maneuvering and skirmishing phase first. Seems a good way to have battles last awhile, while also being realistic.

I also do think that this may be the best idea to have battles lasting more than a few weeks and making sense.

Also, there may be a few traits like Ambusher or Blitzkrieger (Like Alexander the Great); which gives huge bonuses in these maneuvering phases.

 

[Bismark776]

I've always viewed the battles as being a combination of maneuvering, preparing, skirmishing, etc. My issue with the abstraction, however, is that the casualty distribution is terrible. If a campaign between two armies takes 2 months and culminates in a battle that causes 80,000 casualties, I want to see 2 months of almost no casualties, just small hits here and there with mostly days of no casualties, and then a single day with the vast majority of the casualties all at once. That would make sense to me. It doesn't make sense for roughly similar numbers of casualties distributed evenly across the two months which is more or less how CK2, EU4, Vic2, etc. work.

 

[lotharr51]

I think armies should have stances: Fabian / Direct. If both generals are on direct, the battle is fought quickly. If they are both fabian, it could take months and months. If one is direct and the other is fabian, then depending on general's skill, a direct battle could take a long time if ever.

The multi-month meat grinder is pretty silly and there has to be a fresh idea to balance usability with reality.

 

[Baron of Red]

I want weather mechanics for land and sea battles! This could potentially extend the time of battles and gives more diversity/tactics to warfare.

 

[Awakeningg]

Only suggestion that i can think of is a separate window for battles, Football Manager style simulation might work where units marked as symbols (1000 infantry = 1 circle, 1000 horseman = 1 square etc.) on a map with terrain features, while simulation going on we can interfere with commands like retreat or encircle. I'm sure that devs can come up with a much better version of my portrayal. Also, this simulation might be problematic for multiplayer.

I'm perfectly fine with current battle mechanics though.

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

Only suggestion that i can think of is a separate window for battles, Football Manager style simulation might work where units marked as symbols (1000 infantry = 1 circle, 1000 horseman = 1 square etc.) on a map with terrain features, while simulation going on we can interfere with commands like retreat or encircle. I'm sure that devs can come up with a much better version of my portrayal. Also, this simulation might be problematic for multiplayer.

I'm perfectly fine with current battle mechanics though.

Doing that would be difficult with the speed the game runs at, and slowing it would be difficult to reasons that have already been shown


I do like the idea of an maneuvering/skirmishing fase, however I would like to add that the length of this fase should be longer (decreasing daily chance of engagement) or shorter (increasing the daily chance of engagement) depending on the amount of armies present or the ratio between the 2 armies (if one side as a 10:1 advantage or the amount of forces present in both armies are only small the battle should usually start within a few days, while 2 huge armies of equal size should take weeks if not months of maneuvering and skirmishing as long as one side doesn't gain a decisive advantage and just starts engaging )

 

[Vohen]

Doing that would be difficult with the speed the game runs at, and slowing it would be difficult to reasons that have already been shown


I do like the idea of an maneuvering/skirmishing fase, however I would like to add that the length of this fase should be longer (decreasing daily chance of engagement) or shorter (increasing the daily chance of engagement) depending on the amount of armies present or the ratio between the 2 armies (if one side as a 10:1 advantage or the amount of forces present in both armies are only small the battle should usually start within a few days, while 2 huge armies of equal size should take weeks if not months of maneuvering and skirmishing as long as one side doesn't gain a decisive advantage and just starts engaging )

I feel like that maneuvering phase being longer or shorter should depend heavily on the ability of the commanders in question (giving an according advantage), not the size of armies.
That would account for the ability of a skilful general outmaneuvering and defeating a less skilled general in detail, even when that's not represented directly in the game.
Of course, 10:1 battles should happen as in EU4 with overruns imo.

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

I feel like that maneuvering phase being longer or shorter should depend heavily on the ability of the commanders in question (giving an according advantage), not the size of armies.
That would account for the ability of a skilful general outmaneuvering and defeating a less skilled general in detail, even when that's not represented directly in the game.
Of course, 10:1 battles should happen as in EU4 with overruns imo.

I do agree that the ability of the commanders should have an effect, however I would expect battles of equal forces to take more preparing time as neither is sure of a win, while a bigger army just takes longer to fully get in position and get the best out of a possible advantageous position

 

[Awakeningg]

Doing that would be difficult with the speed the game runs at, and slowing it would be difficult to reasons that have already been shown

Oh, i meant to say when the battle commence game should pause so we can watch the simulation in a separate window. I agree that might be problematic since player isn't the only one who's fighting but i also think there must be a way to implement this kind of engaging battles that we can interfere, i just don't know how to.

 

[Esben_DRK]

Oh, i meant to say when the battle commence game should pause so we can watch the simulation in a separate window. I agree that might be problematic since player isn't the only one who's fighting but i also think there must be a way to implement this kind of engaging battles that we can interfere, i just don't know how to.

Pausing the game like that is simply never an option. It'll ruin the game in singleplayer, and make multiplayer figuratively unplayable.
Furthermore, since this game is quite different from Football Manager, the requirements for game mechanics are different. Dots on a map would not satisfy anyone: The RTS/RTW-esque tacticians would desire actual tactical combat, the GS connoiseurs would loathe the poor breaks in the strategy, the historical plausibility crowd would demolish it as exceptionally inplausible and everyone with an ounce of historical knowledge would find flaws in the setup and/or AI.
Where do you see the potential advantages to your suggestion?

 

[Awakeningg]

Pausing the game like that is simply never an option. It'll ruin the game in singleplayer, and make multiplayer figuratively unplayable.
Furthermore, since this game is quite different from Football Manager, the requirements for game mechanics are different. Dots on a map would not satisfy anyone: The RTS/RTW-esque tacticians would desire actual tactical combat, the GS connoiseurs would loathe the poor breaks in the strategy, the historical plausibility crowd would demolish it as exceptionally inplausible and everyone with an ounce of historical knowledge would find flaws in the setup and/or AI.
Where do you see the potential advantages to your suggestion?

RTS tacticians will desire actual tactical combat like Total War no matter what, but why GS fans would loathe anything about Football Manager style simulation? Our contribution in battles right now is non existent, we can only reinforce our troops unrealisticly, everything else happens with mathematical simulations of numbers, in Football Manager, simulation still happens the same way, automatically, the difference is player can actually affect the outcome by reacting to numbers and using different tactics to manipulate them, still you can't won every match that you're playing in Football Manager, tactics aren't affecting the match massively, outcome still heavily tied to players training decisions and other things like performances.

Change trainings with discipline and performances with morale, include a different window for battles, show how battle is going on and let the player use buttons for predetermined tactics, let these predetermined tactics change some numbers, here you go, same as EU 4 but we can interfere a little.

The problem is that we can't pause the game since player isn't the only one who fight battles, i've already stated that.

 

[Vohen]

RTS tacticians will desire actual tactical combat like Total War no matter what, but why GS fans would loathe anything about Football Manager style simulation? Our contribution in battles right now is non existent, we can only reinforce our troops unrealisticly, everything else happens with mathematical simulations of numbers, in Football Manager, simulation still happens the same way, automatically, the difference is player can actually affect the outcome by reacting to numbers and using different tactics to manipulate them, still you can't won every match that you're playing in Football Manager, tactics aren't affecting the match massively, outcome still heavily tied to players training decisions and other things like performances.

Change trainings with discipline and performances with morale, include a different window for battles, show how battle is going on and let the player use buttons for predetermined tactics, let these predetermined tactics change some numbers, here you go, same as EU 4 but we can interfere a little.

The problem is that we can't pause the game since player isn't the only one who fight battles, i've already stated that.

I think it's a problem with scope, there's nothing wrong with your idea, but the tactical level is not what PDX goes for in their games usually.
That might change at some point in the future, but I don't really see it happening, unless it's on a new IP or something.
Truth is, this change would alter the focus of the game (not completely, but it wouldn't be insignificant) in a way that might not fit their design philosophy from their traditional GSGs.
At the very least, I can imagine that it would be quite the divisive feature for the fanbase, maybe similar to the 1upt controversy in Civ5.

 

[Esben_DRK]

but why GS fans would loathe anything about Football Manager style simulation?

I think you can read through the number of responses that come to any request for RTS style battles and get a good idea about the reasoning: It adds nothing positive to the grand strategy aspects of the games, while taking away not just development resources but also diminishing the effects of strategic planning and preparation. Look at the rage threats across the forum that come from dice rolls going against people (And very determined efforts to show that the dice are biased somehow). Those same responses would come to the feature you're suggesting, just even stronger.
Furthermore, if it's as non-determining as you say later, a player will be able to safely ignore it in favour of spending time on the grand strategy, leading PDX to decide that it's not a worthwhile expenditure of their time and effort. On the other hand, if it's determinative then it's a remarkable change for no further immersion or meaningful gameplay mechanic, leading us back to a figuratively unplayable game.
Football Manager is probably a great game for people who like that kind of games, and at least an astonishing commercial success. It's not an obvious source for good gameplay features to a GSG, and spending just five minutes critically examining what this feature would offer of historical immersion or meaningful gameplay compared to potential adverse effects or spent resources would convince you of that as well.

 

[Efimer]

In paradox games battles don't represent just large pitched battles but a whole series of skirmishes and conflicts.

I think that Paradox makes games in continuous time and this makes difficult to devise a sensible battle system...

 

[Efimer]

@roug1234 @amallricThe main argument in favour of long battles in I:R is the same as it has been in all previous grand strategy games by PDS, and it is a good one: it is by design a n-player real time game, not a singleplayer game

You're wrong, the official page says it's a singleplayer.