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

[Alpha2518]

By stating the masslaughter expected is precisely what one would expect from ww1 as it occurred

Evidently you missed the obvious mocking tone of the post.

 

[DanielPrates]

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.

Those are all valid strategic considerations in other games, even previous Vics, but lets be honest, you are seeing a freedom of choice in the new game that just isn't there for the most part.

 

[klopkr]

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.

This kinda makes me think of playing madden and choosing your teams play.

Could be cool but it feels like steps of abstraction and AI for something you could also just do by clicking and making the play yourself right?

 

[klopkr]

Here's a couple of other historical war scenarios from the period I'm wondering about:

In the franco prussian war once the prussians breakthrough they head toward paris. I can understand the current system leading the front towards the enemy capital, especially if it's the 'war goal'. But historically the prussians stopped and the famous commune of paris commune situation unfolds while the prussians are occupying land nearby. How does that play out? Would a front stop before a capital city?

How would a 'raid' type attack or a march through a nation to another work in the current system?

How does a moving front with non solid borders work like in the war i'm most interested in the period, the Taiping rebellion?

Not every aspect of every war needs to be simulated but deep piercing attacks to specific points and across specific roads/rails is a fundamental part of warfare during this period. I just don't understand how the current system would do them.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

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.

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 :

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.

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.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

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 think generals are going to be more important than people seem to assume.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

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 :

Yeah I read it. And I explicitly meant that comment rather than what you wrote. Whether army ends defending in the mountains should be entirely a question on how strategically positioned those mountains are. Having a commander with mountain leader trait should have no bearing on it at all. Great for attacking or defending Switzerland, irrelevant for Eastern Theatre of US Civil War where there might be mountains, but they didn't see any combat as there were better avenues of approach.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

i think generals are going to be more important than people seem to assume.

I'm not sure if I follow. My comment had nothing to with how important or unimportant generals will be in the game.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I'm not sure if I follow. My comment had nothing to with how important or unimportant generals will be in the game.

no, but mine was. you mentioned generals' traits and i think they're going to be a bigger aspect of the game than people might think.

 

[Ivashanko]

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.

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.

 

[klopkr]

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.

Damn that sounds kind of concerning. There must be some kind of locality to environment type right?

I wouldn't be finding a massive mountain range deep into Louisiana because my front touches the Appalachians and my general is a mountain general right?

 

[gjfkgjfj]

I'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?

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

 

[klopkr]

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.

 

[luxfelix]

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.

Why do empires rise and fall?

Tag switching...

 

[Acularius]

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.

I know they talked about it being something they want to do in the future - so that's probably a DLC I suspect.

 

[klopkr]

Why do empires rise and fall?

Tag switching...

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!

I can see myself switching into the CSA to make it win in vicky games just so I can see how that outcome effects in my games... or the heavenly empire!

 

[Brownbeard]

Question for very old people... has anyone here played No greater glory by SSI, a 1991 ACW strategy game?

TBH, quite a few aspects of V3 warfare and political aspects of army and warfare reminded me of that game. I think the last time I played that was like 1994 on Amiga 500, I still had sandbags on my room windows, and that one was bloody hard, at least it was for a 13yo version of me. Popped to my mind when someone mentioned McClellan. That wuss used to piss me off so bad...

 

[Ivashanko]

I know they talked about it being something they want to do in the future - so that's probably a DLC I suspect.

Darn. That's a shame.

 

[Woifee]

i think generals are going to be more important than people seem to assume.

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.

 

[DanielPrates]

i think generals are going to be more important than people seem to assume.

This is the truth that is slowly sinking in. We have a GENERALCENTRIC WAR SYSTEM.

... and I think I like it, maybe. As long as it isn't just a game of 'choose your general and watch war unfold'.