You could order a naval invasion, which would open up a second front in Louisiana, or you could order your generals to conquer Arkansas and Louisiana, and then as they win battles, they conquer more and more provinces until you reach Louisiana. That would also split the USA-CSA front into two different fronts, after which you could assign more troops to the new Texas front that you just created, and defeat them there first while defending against Confederate attacks at the Eastern front, slowly depleting them of resources and manpower.
This kinda makes me think of playing madden and choosing your teams play.I'm thinking whether there should be a system where the AI staff presents some general offensive warplans for the player and the player gets to select from those plans. The plans could be some sort of city targets (e.g. the capital, other major strategic cities), general front priorities (concentrate on the left, centre, right). The plan would then be in effect for a set time, until the goal is reached, until the offense bogs down or if there is major loss of territory in another section of the front, which would then allow player to select new plan to react to that or continue offensive elsewhere.
So as Germany you could involve the neutral Belgium into the war, then select plan to attack towards Paris along the right flank, which would then see your troops concentrate on attacking Belgium and from there onwards to France.
That one was pretty questionable IMO. Even if your general is mountain expert, mountains are never favourable terrain. It's something that should be more useful if you absolutely must attack in mountains. And for US Civil War, being a forest expert would be very useful as the terrain tended to be rugged in comparison to most of Europe, but they still should try to advance along better terrain if they can.
It's weight-based, not deterministic. But in this case there's a high chance that the battle will take place in either mountain or forest compared to other terrain - because the advancing party will want to fight in mountain, while the defending party will want to fight in forest, so both will try to arrange for the battle to transpire in "their" province.
An important mindset shift here is that it's not that one army is trying to seek out another army to do battle, but rather that the advancing army is trying to capture territory - preferably without a fight, or fighting as small a number as possible - while the defending army is trying to stop that with as large a force as possible. This is a bit different from other PDS games where you usually try to make your stack chase down an enemy stack, with sieging provinces being something you only do after the enemy stack is defeated and before they come back with a larger force.
i think generals are going to be more important than people seem to assume.And this got me wondering about how where battles take place will be determined by the game. It's seems pretty abstracted, where two armies will encounter one another is some kind of dice roll influenced by both generals traits and available terrain type on the front.
I found this in the dev diary when Jamaican Castle asked about an army lead by a mountain specialist attacking one lead by a forest specialist, here the dev answer :
I think the whole premise of this thread is kinda flawed TBH. There will always be specific aspects of history that are badly modeled by games or even not at all modeled. Like partisan warfare, attrition tactics etc. Games simply have to cut and chose what their mechanics allow and what not.
Damn that sounds kind of concerning. There must be some kind of locality to environment type right?I found this in the dev diary when Jamaican Castle asked about an army lead by a mountain specialist attacking one lead by a forest specialist, here the dev answer :
And this got me wondering about how where battles take place will be determined by the game. It's seems pretty abstracted, where two armies will encounter one another is some kind of dice roll influenced by both generals traits and available terrain type on the front.
it doesnt, you dont understand? just, idk, play, at least you can play at 5 speed without needing to pause lmaoI'm seriously not understanding how the frontline system is supposed to simulate real tactics in Important historical wars of the vicky 2 time period.
How am I supposed to take Louisiana? How am I supposed to push for Atlanta? How am I supposed to get around DC?
How am I supposed to take mexico city? Can my naval invasion do a march to mexico city or will they slowly take over all of southern mexico?
That's unironically the impression I get.it doesnt, you dont understand? just, idk, play, at least you can play at 5 speed without needing to pause lmao
That's unironically the impression I get.
Feels like I'll be playing the way I play HoI4 in the late game. Just let it run and wait until it's done. Might as well just observe and see how things turn out. Without war being fun I might as well just tag switch to make the diplo part of the game actually more interesting world wide.
I know they talked about it being something they want to do in the future - so that's probably a DLC I suspect.One of the strong points about this new system is that things like partisan warfare and attrition tactics can be modelled. If they don't even try I'll be pretty disappointed.
This is unironically how I end up with the most interesting maps in PDS games! Fighting your own original nation as a behemoth is awesome!Why do empires rise and fall?
I also thinkt that chosing generals and the amount of ressources you give them will determin the wars. Generals are not just modifers now. That's, in my opinion, a good thing.