Can someone explain how the USA is supposed to take just Louisiana with the current frontlines?

[Lordy's]

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.

But also, I like to have a little more controll tough. Tell them where to advance. So maybe there is a middleground to be found. I give orders and Generals act according to their personality. But therefore limit the players choice of Generals. If i only have a timid General left for a major Front opperation I have to deal with him. At least until he fails or elections are over and I can kick him.

Agree with that. If you can give every general its own strategic target province, you essentially get subfronts but without the weird splitting/merging. Of course, having a strategic target doesn't mean that the general will advance directly into that province next, but come up with a plan to go there on his own (which might include going for adjacent provinces first) and decides the timing. It certainly wouldn't be super micro heavy.

 

[Prince Ire]

it doesnt, you dont understand? just, idk, play, at least you can play at 5 speed without needing to pause lmao

But you still have to micro your factories though, so no speed 5 for you!

 

[RaptorCommander]

This isn't the case. Paradox has clearly stated that you can give Generals priority targets, which are not the same as the ultimate goal of the war.

For example, you can in fact order the commander in charge of the Army of the Potomac to focus on taking Richmond and he will focus on taking Richmond.

And the idea that there won't be Naval Invasions is pretty damn laughable. Will they happen regularly at launch? Probably not, but that's a balance issue, not a mechanics issue.

If only you could. The single front line is the problem here. Allocation of fresh troops and generals to a specfic part of a front would be fun. But alas at the moment it is not possible.

 

[DanielPrates]

If only you could. The single front line is the problem here. Allocation of fresh troops and generals to a specfic part of a front would be fun. But alas at the moment it is not possible.

Yes this. Besides @EU3NOOB iirc the DD says it "may" in futute implement a system where you set states as targets for your generals. We are not quite there yet.

 

[Austregisel]

Imagining want a system that portray 1 war over 100000 other wars that are so different in the 100 years spam of the game

 

[Spartakusbund]

But you still have to micro your factories though, so no speed 5 for you!

Buildings update every 7 days (28 ticks), don't they?

 

[JohnnyDepressio]

What if, when selecting a general for a front, you could preview their plans to accomplish the goal?

This general plans to take this route while the other general believes it should be done going that way?

Wow the goal was to cut down on the micro and now I should look at the random generated plans of my general and then pick the one that fits best for a front?
Sorry no. The devs need to reconsider their approach. Certain overall strategies where decided on the highest level. We need the ability to decide about the general movements of our armies. I am ok with not moving individual units. I am ok with not being able to cycle units etc. But I need to be able to make certain decisions like push here, hold there try to encircle this. The current approach there my involvement is no more then conquer France defend against Russia is not acceptable for me.

 

[luxfelix]

Wow the goal was to cut down on the micro and now I should look at the random generated plans of my general and then pick the one that fits best for a front?
Sorry no. The devs need to reconsider their approach. Certain overall strategies where decided on the highest level. We need the ability to decide about the general movements of our armies. I am ok with not moving individual units. I am ok with not being able to cycle units etc. But I need to be able to make certain decisions like push here, hold there try to encircle this. The current approach there my involvement is no more then conquer France defend against Russia is not acceptable for me.

I see your point.

Maybe there's a way we could get both?

Thinking along the same lines as a planning bonus from HOI IV, give the player the option to set strategic objectives (push/hold/encircle) to redirect what a general may/may not have planned for already; however, what if there's a tradeoff in selecting a general with plans that match what the player wants versus a general with a very different strategy?

For example, if we have general with mountaineering experience wanting to flank an enemy from the heights, though the player orders them to focus on coastline objectives instead, the general will obey with a performance impact (better to choose a general that agrees with the coastal route).

As suggested elsewhere, if the decision is made against the generals wishes, that could have an effect on the interest group they represent; likewise, allowing a general to enact their plan could allow for shifting of blame to the general and their faction in the event of failure.

 

[JohnnyDepressio]

I see your point.

Maybe there's a way we could get both?

Thinking along the same lines as a planning bonus from HOI IV, give the player the option to set strategic objectives (push/hold/encircle) to redirect what a general may/may not have planned for already; however, what if there's a tradeoff in selecting a general with plans that match what the player wants versus a general with a very different strategy?

For example, if we have general with mountaineering experience wanting to flank an enemy from the heights, though the player orders them to focus on coastline objectives instead, the general will obey with a performance impact (better to choose a general that agrees with the coastal route).

I do not think generals should bring their own objectives. That will lead to the most tedious and meaningless form of micro. Obviously you will want to use your generals the way their traits make the most sense but that should be it in my humble opinion.

What I would suggest is to implement something like the hoi4 Battleplaner. Players could plan the war in advance with partial offensives fallback lines etc. Perhaps even increase the possibilities with something like several stages you can plan in advance. But add a form of
order delay that determines the time between you drawing arrows on the map and your generals receiving these orders. This delay should be something between a few days or several months depending on technology, infrastructure and distance to capital.
That way players could still lay out their strategies for the war. They would not be watchers who pray for their ai not to be too stupid. Players could also still react to the war and change their strategy. However most of the cheesy gameplay and exploitive micro should not be possible this way.

 

[luxfelix]

I do not think generals should bring their own objectives. That will lead to the most tedious and meaningless form of micro. Obviously you will want to use your generals the way their traits make the most sense but that should be it in my humble opinion.

What I would suggest is to implement something like the hoi4 Battleplaner. Players could plan the war in advance with partial offensives fallback lines etc. Perhaps even increase the possibilities with something like several stages you can plan in advance. But add a form of
order delay that determines the time between you drawing arrows on the map and your generals receiving these orders. This delay should be something between a few days or several months depending on technology, infrastructure and distance to capital.
That way players could still lay out their strategies for the war. They would not be watchers who pray for their ai not to be too stupid. Players could also still react to the war and change their strategy. However most of the cheesy gameplay and exploitive micro should not be possible this way.

I do like the Battleplanner for sure.

I could see the initiation of diplomatic plays as the point where a player could also begin to draw these war plans on the map (and mobilize when the time is right) prior to the actual war.

In addition to the factors you list, maybe the order delay could even vary based on how far it deviates from the original war plan from the diplomatic play stage?

Coming from left field here now, this order delay mechanic could also open up opportunities to include espionage/intrigue that a player can discover (and vice versa) either during the diplomatic play stage (with deep spy networks) or just in those times between order sending/receiving (and perhaps interception/deception...?).

 

[Faeelin]

Imagining want a system that portray 1 war over 100000 other wars that are so different in the 100 years spam of the game

I actually think fronts were super important in the Seven Weeks War, to give one example?

 

[prismaticmarcus]

nclude espionage/intrigue that a player can discover (and vice versa) either during the diplomatic play stage (with deep spy networks) or just in those times between order sending/receiving (and perhaps interception/deception...?).

actually, this would be a great place in which to slot intrigue i.e. you discover General A's battle plan and you order your general B to 'counter that Ahole'

 

[Austregisel]

I actually think fronts were super important in the Seven Weeks War, to give one example?

This is not the front system from HOI, its possible to have pre-modern warfare system very well with this "primitive" front system

 

[Sarmatian]

I don't think plans would work as one might hope. This is AI. It can be taught to understand a little bit of tactics, but strategy is way beyond its grasp.

What happens if you give your general a plan to advance through area A, and it turns out enemy has a lot of troops there? You watch them send your soldiers to death? Your general won't be able to understand that maybe area B is now lightly defended and he should try an advance there.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I don't think plans would work as one might hope. This is AI. It can be taught to understand a little bit of tactics, but strategy is way beyond its grasp.

What happens if you give your general a plan to advance through area A, and it turns out enemy has a lot of troops there? You watch them send your soldiers to death? Your general won't be able to understand that maybe area B is now lightly defended and he should try an advance there.

they've implied that these Generals will already be able to do that.

i think an AI general ought to be able to come up with a two step plan i.e. 'first i want to do A and then B.'

 

[klopkr]

they've implied that these Generals will already be able to do that.

i think an AI general ought to be able to come up with a two step plan i.e. 'first i want to do A and then B.'

Are you sure? Can you quote some places they implied that?

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Are you sure? Can you quote some places they implied that?

Generals charged with advancing a Front will favor marching towards and conquering states marked as war goals, but their route there may be more or less circuitous depending on how the war is progressing and possibly other factors such as the local terrain.


so i read this as 'i've been directed to head north but right now it's better for me to move east'

 

[Faeelin]

This is not the front system from HOI, its possible to have pre-modern warfare system very well with this "primitive" front system

How?

Let's give a good example. Can you reenact the Schiefflen plan in this system?

 

[Knoll]

Not everything needs that happened historically needs to be directly modeled in-game. It's perfectly legitimate for some things to be beneath the abstraction. Nobody asks of HoI4 "Can you control positioning of individual naval vessels? How can you reenact Midway without controlling the individual ships?" or even "Why don't we have control of squads? Is the Brecourt Manor Assault even possible without control of individual troops?" These are abstracted away because so the developer can focus on more meaningful core gameplay elements instead of the player getting bogged down in micromanagement. In Victoria 2 the core gameplay is country building and diplomacy and it's fine for military operations to be heavily abstracted so that the player can focus their attention on those elements.

The two things that matter are: a) are there meaningful and fun gameplay actions and decisions for the player to influence the results of wars? b) do the war abstractions create results that are within a range of realistic expectations? Nobody has played the game yet, so I don't think we can really speak to either question, but I think it's definitely possible to succeed in both areas with the system that they have laid out.

 

[Faeelin]

I think the issue is people want to act like Bismarck or Lincoln in the Civil War. Abstraction is fine, but if my game about the 19th century doesn't let me get that level of detail, players' complaints are fair!