Combat Clarity

[InnocentIII]

Even with the efforts to make the stages of combat more clear in EU2, it was never clear, to me, why I was winning or losing beyond a general idea that more was better and higher tech was better.

My wishes for EU3 combat:

- generally, just make it clearer what is going on;
- clearer how tech is affecting combat, especially tech levels between the big boosts to unit power;
- it would be nice if each tech improvement had some effect and if that effect was clearly communicated;
- An AI advisor would be nice - tell me what I am lacking in my current combat, or at least why the other guy has an advantage. This could be pure text and therefore relatively easy to use, even for new players.

Example: "We outnumber the enemy substantially, however their defensive position is equal to our numerical advantage. The enemy have more cannon than we do. Our cavalry are largely useless in this terrain. Overall, the enemy has a significant advantage and without more troops, especially cannon, we are unlikely to prevail."

Perhaps there can be an after action report file created with all the math included. Then we could break down one or two battles every hour or so and figure out what is happening. If overwhelming newbies is a worry - make the report an option and don't highlight it on screen (i.e. hide it).

 

[Fintilgin]

This would be really nice, actually. It's exactly the sort of user-friendly thing which helps people get up to speed playing the game and helps defuse a LOT of newbie frustration. If Paradox is serious about making the game appeal to people outside us core fanatics I think this sort of feedback and info is extremely important.

After all, for the longest time my EU2 military strategy consisted largely of:
"Make a big random glob of soldiers and throw them at the enemy." I would have welcomed some in-game feedback beyond some wildy wiggling morale gauges at the top of the screen.

For example, perhaps the optional "Battle Won/Lost" popup could have a quick breakdown of the factors that had affected the battle.

 

[Stingray]

Example: "We outnumber the enemy substantially, however their defensive position is equal to our numerical advantage. The enemy have more cannon than we do. Our cavalry are largely useless in this terrain. Overall, the enemy has a significant advantage and without more troops, especially cannon, we are unlikely to prevail."

That seems like a bit too much information for my taste. Perhaps more like in Victoria, where you can see what factors give what benefits and maluses (sp?).

Also, I'm not certain if I'm interpreting (sp?) you right here, I support having a more detailed description of technology, and what the current CRT mean in regards to tactics, weaponry and so on.

 

[Sindai]

Just having a teensy bit more info about the numbers being used would be a huge help. In EU1 and 2 we got two numbers that appeared to be mostly random and a little needle that only told you what was already obvious from morale and numeric levels. It was one of the weakest parts of the game.

Of course, HoI and Vicky greatly improved upon things, so I imagine there's not much to worry about.

 

[InnocentIII]

I did't want to suggest that the player be presented with a slew of numbers that makes it harder to understand. I'd like to see combat reports avialable for those who decide to dig into files, so we can see examples of how things work. However, the in-game report, it seems to me, ought to be clearer without adding complexity.

IMHO the description I gave is not that much information, it is long only because it describes each factor. It tells the player where his disadvantage is without hitting him with a formula. Once you see a few of these you'd ignore all but one or two sentences.

"It was one of the weakest parts of the game." - yeah, I played for a couple hundred hours and never really had much of a clue beyond "more is better, except for attrition". You get the gist of it, more is better, cannon are good in seiges, leaders help, but I never felt like watching the new numbers fly by was getting me closer to grasping what was going on.

I understand that having a feel for combat is perhaps a better mechanism than playing by trying to understand the exact numbers. However, it is very frustrating for new players to feel as though they have no clue why they just lost a battle they expected to win.

 

[Grosshaus]

That seems like a bit too much information for my taste. Perhaps more like in Victoria, where you can see what factors give what benefits and maluses (sp?).

It was like that also in HoI2, just a bit more information included. In HoI2, and in later CK patches, you also got after battle reports telling the casualties.

 

[SirGrotius]

I really like this idea. Conditions and statistics affecting battles should be displayed as roll-over text during the engagement. This would allow you, as the commander, as better sense of what's going on and if retreat to fight another day would be a sensible option.

 

[STGeorge]

I agree EU's greatest failing is its combat.

More visual information is a must.... I hate abstract combat!

 

[Rythin]

After all, for the longest time my EU2 military strategy consisted largely of:
"Make a big random glob of soldiers and throw them at the enemy." I would have welcomed some in-game feedback beyond some wildy wiggling morale gauges at the top of the screen.

Heh, it wasn't that trivial either. After all there was a bunch of factors one should keep in mind, terrain, morales, rivers, leaders among other things

 

[Kelvin]

We definitely need more info on combat, otherwise it's just "throw the hordes of troops against enemy and you might win the battle". If we get info about the battle and reasons for losing (or even winning), then we might have a better chance to conduct wars in a more organized way.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

If the game gave a list of the top five factors affecting each outcome, I guarentee you the top reason 9 times out of 10 would be "Random luck". Having played the board game, I can assure you that one can go into a battle with all factors in your favor (tech, terrain, troop composition, troop morale, numbers), but if you roll 1's and your opponent rolls 10's, you will still lose the battle.

But sure, Paradox should be able to include their CRTs in the booklet, and have the game show the die rolls for each stage of the battle.

What I would like to see is going back to the board game's rules where the total die roll modifiers for one side were not necessarily the opposite of the other side's.

-Pat

 

[jmschaub]

I also hate it when my 30000 troops get their asses kicked by 120

 

[unmerged(20873)]

Example: "We outnumber the enemy substantially, however their defensive position is equal to our numerical advantage. The enemy have more cannon than we do. Our cavalry are largely useless in this terrain. Overall, the enemy has a significant advantage and without more troops, especially cannon, we are unlikely to prevail."

This is a great idea. And you wouldn't have to script x millions of battle results either, just make every condition give one result, like cavalry:
Mountain - Cavalry - Combat Efficiency 10% (as an example) would give the line:
"Our cavalry are largely useless in this terrain"
And in the end it would all end up to different values, like a value of 10% would give "we are unlikely to prevail".

 

[Squigbunny]

This would be really nice, actually. It's exactly the sort of user-friendly thing which helps people get up to speed playing the game and helps defuse a LOT of newbie frustration. If Paradox is serious about making the game appeal to people outside us core fanatics I think this sort of feedback and info is extremely important.

After all, for the longest time my EU2 military strategy consisted largely of:
"Make a big random glob of soldiers and throw them at the enemy." I would have welcomed some in-game feedback beyond some wildy wiggling morale gauges at the top of the screen.

For example, perhaps the optional "Battle Won/Lost" popup could have a quick breakdown of the factors that had affected the battle.

Completely agree. it would be nice to know why I lost! :rofl:

 

[unmerged(8915)]

I also hate it when my 30000 troops get their asses kicked by 120

no way...

on a related note, randomness IS a huge part of strategic warfare. but rest assured, the system in eu3 will be enhanced. wasnt HOI part of the inspiration johan quoted for eu3. i think battles will be more like vicky (just my guess),

 

[jmschaub]

no way...

on a related note, randomness IS a huge part of strategic warfare. but rest assured, the system in eu3 will be enhanced. wasnt HOI part of the inspiration johan quoted for eu3. i think battles will be more like vicky (just my guess),

It happens... related to different morale values. But this should never happen in a game. I don't care how low your morale is.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

I think the importance of moral should be reduced, in EU2 it is fair too important at the lower tech levels. I do not know how many times I have seen a 20K cavarly army lose to 5K inf and cavarly merely because they got a lucky roll in the first round, and you know that your army would destroy them if the battle went on for more than a day.
It is infuriating to have it occur so often, and it can make rebels in mountains absolute hell.

 

[King of Men]

To be fair, rebels in mountains should be absolute hell. There's a reason Switzerland remained independent.

 

[Sute]{h]

To be fair, rebels in mountains should be absolute hell. There's a reason Switzerland remained independent.

It's called balance of power. All of the nearby greatpowers knew that if they invaded Switzerland the other greatpowers would respond in kind. Add to that the fact that Switzerland had the reputation of having some of the most elite soldiers in Europe, and that nearly every greatpower hired Swiss mercenaries.