Developer Diary 26 – Miscellaneous Military Stuff

[pizza de oveja]

Oh jezz...I cant believe it...

the unholy ultra crap combat dice system of Europa Universalis!!!!...I knew they were going to spoil victory after spoiling hoi with the horrendous hoi3...

You have an infiltrated agent inside paradox that secretly works for a rival company, that is crippling all your new games on porpouse! There cant be any other explanation.

Lets hope that modders can salvage in the future something from this...

 

[Rabid]

Oh jezz...I cant believe it...

the unholy ultra crap combat dice system of Europa Universalis!!!!...I knew they were going to spoil victory after spoiling hoi with the horrendous hoi3...

You have an infiltrated agent inside paradox that secretly works for a rival company, that is crippling all your new games on porpouse! There cant be any other explanation.

Lets hope that modders can salvage in the future something from this...

You prefer the more-random EU2 system where you can't actually see the randomness, you just lose for no reason?

 

[McNaughton]

Oh jezz...I cant believe it...

the unholy ultra crap combat dice system of Europa Universalis!!!!...I knew they were going to spoil victory after spoiling hoi with the horrendous hoi3...

You have an infiltrated agent inside paradox that secretly works for a rival company, that is crippling all your new games on porpouse! There cant be any other explanation.

Lets hope that modders can salvage in the future something from this...

In life there was always something to be said about randomness. Luck, or random chance was very important. Did you stumble upon your opponent? Did some of your troops get lost on route to battle? Did you end up accidentally flanking your opponent? Were your forces accidentally divergent creating a gap? Did a unit hear a rumor and break? Did a green regiment happen to make a one and a million last stand?

While geography, arms, training and leadership always play a factor in war, so too does random chance. Battles should not be so particular to know that if you have X+Y+Z you will always win over someone who just has X+Y. A dice is an easy way to represent the random micro details of a battle in a macro gameplay way.

 

[OHgamer]

While geography, arms, training and leadership always play a factor in war, so too does random chance. Battles should not be so particular to know that if you have X+Y+Z you will always win over someone who just has X+Y. A dice is an easy way to represent the random micro details of a battle in a macro gameplay way.

Agreed.

On paper, both the Habsburgs and the French should have cleaned the Prussians' clocks during the wars of the 1860s, given the various advantages in size of armies and military technologies they both had. They however, both were unlucky, in part due to incompetent leadership, and in part just because lady luck was sitting with the Prussians both times.

Or the Battle of the Marne, 1914. The Germans probably should have defeated the French, but for the luck of the French to be able to plug holes in their lines by transporting troops with cabs from Paris.

Battles are never foretold in the stars to turn out a given way based solely on the statistics of orders of battle, there is always a degree of randomness that creeps in that can result in the unexpected happening.

 

[Baneslave]

While geography, arms, training and leadership always play a factor in war, so too does random chance. Battles should not be so particular to know that if you have X+Y+Z you will always win over someone who just has X+Y. A dice is an easy way to represent the random micro details of a battle in a macro gameplay way.

And people would be complaining about "unfair" combat results if the dice wasn't visible, so it is better to have it visible.

(Generally more information available is better less information, and this is one of those cases)

Edit. Rabid said it earlier:

You prefer the more-random EU2 system where you can't actually see the randomness, you just lose for no reason?

 

[unmerged(36774)]

But there were battle events in HOI series, if I remember correctly. And those were random too, no? Random events would give better and more realistic feel for the game than dice. It is now like there is a God rolling the dice and deciding the battle.

 

[unmerged(65476)]

...

Occurrence of those random events during the battle might be also related/bounded with certain skills of your generals for example:
- "artillerist" might cause additional chaos in enemy ranks due to superb fire on the enemy lines leading to breakthrough...
- "cavalry school" could lead to some increased chance to flank the enemy or some other crazy stuff like charge on the artillery brigade
- "uncommonly young" could cause positive and negative effect as his age must be related with lack of combat experience which sometimes might lead to some bad decisions on the battlefield but there might be also advantage of having young non-conservative leader which in combat grants great results thanks to commanders bravery and fresh mind open to new ideas/tactics

How do you think about that?

 

[Colon]

But there were battle events in HOI series, if I remember correctly. And those were random too, no? Random events would give better and more realistic feel for the game than dice. It is now like there is a God rolling the dice and deciding the battle.

As I stated before, if you don't include a random factor you could precalculate the outcome of a battle. Were you to replay a battle a hundredth times, you'd get the exact same result a hundredth times. It's amazing this is even an issue, every simulation of combat in games includes a random factor.

 

[unmerged(36774)]

As I stated before, if you don't include a random factor you could precalculate the outcome of a battle. Were you to replay a battle a hundredth times, you'd get the exact same result a hundredth times. It's amazing this is even an issue, every simulation of combat in games includes a random factor.

Eh, you got me wrong. I am proposing randmness in form of random events.

 

[Balesir]

But there were battle events in HOI series, if I remember correctly. And those were random too, no? Random events would give better and more realistic feel for the game than dice. It is now like there is a God rolling the dice and deciding the battle.

There is more randomness in HoI combat than just the battle events - there is also hits, (for AoD naval combat) critical hits and (for naval combat) positioning "rolled" by chance. HoI3 has front line/reserves allocation/swapping, too.

Since Vicky's main focus is not military strategy or tactics, going to this sort of (more complex) battle system doesn't make much sense, IMO.

 

[Maginor]

Or the Battle of the Marne, 1914. The Germans probably should have defeated the French, but for the luck of the French to be able to plug holes in their lines by transporting troops with cabs from Paris.

That is more an example of good planning than good luck, but I agree that luck played a large factor in battles. Even if there is good leadership on both sides, one side may choose a tactic that is a perfect answer to the tactic of the other side, or attacking just when the other side is rearranging positions or something right at a time when their scouts could not see the attack at that specific angle. These things can happen even if neither of the sides were planning for it.

 

[gadajs]

The question is just how determinant is the dice roll? If say player A rolls a 9 and player B Rolls a 2, what will their 'scores be' assuming equal tech and number and terrain....

Will it be a major difference? like 90-20
a reasonable difference like 190 -120
or a little difference like 109 - 102?

 

[unmerged(57903)]

And people would be complaining about "unfair" combat results if the dice wasn't visible, so it is better to have it visible.

(Generally more information available is better less information, and this is one of those cases)

Edit. Rabid said it earlier:

For what it's worth, I disagree with that. I find being able to see the dice rolls pretty depressing, reminds you you're playing a daft game. I prefer vague references to the cut and thrust of fortune - I'm not stupid, I know there's randomness in the results and I think that's a good thing, I just don't want it all quantified in front of my face ('SCORE!!! I got rolled a 6, that'll smash the Russians!').

 

[unmerged(71030)]

For what it's worth, I disagree with that. I find being able to see the dice rolls pretty depressing, reminds you you're playing a daft game. I prefer vague references to the cut and thrust of fortune - I'm not stupid, I know there's randomness in the results and I think that's a good thing, I just don't want it all quantified in front of my face ('SCORE!!! I got rolled a 6, that'll smash the Russians!').

I ain't no fancy city slicker 'n all, but you know, gawlly, I just don't look at the dice rolls...

 

[Colon]

The question is just how determinant is the dice roll? If say player A rolls a 9 and player B Rolls a 2, what will their 'scores be' assuming equal tech and number and terrain....

Will it be a major difference? like 90-20
a reasonable difference like 190 -120
or a little difference like 109 - 102?

I imagine it's only a small difference, as it always has been. Enough to create some variation in casualties and to determine the outcome of two equal forces fighting on equal terms. However, for some reasons seeing the random factor leads people to assume that they really could have beaten that numerically superior force, with superior technology, and with terrain in its favour, if only it hadn't been for the dice.

 

[Balesir]

I imagine it's only a small difference, as it always has been. Enough to create some variation in casualties and to determine the outcome of two equal forces fighting on equal terms. However, for some reasons seeing the random factor leads people to assume that they really could have beaten that numerically superior force, with superior technology, and with terrain in its favour, if only it hadn't been for the dice.

Sounds like a good simulation of real-life!! :rofl:

 

[Lord Strange]

I am amazed at the number of people who want their historical leaders: I know how fun it is to have your favourite general running aorund, but epecially once you've played 50 years of the game, the chances of that person being born, or even being born in the smae situation is madness: if as Britain I conquer Africa early, who knows if the parents of one of my WW1 era-generals is going to be one of the new colonists in my new British East Africa-or if they emigrate to South America, which has become the land of opportunity. I'll go with historical leaders at the start, and maybe events for the first few years where generals were already up-and-coming, but beyond that Historical leaders seem to be a bit odd.

 

[unmerged(44030)]

I liked it more when the randomness was happening "under the hood" and dice rolls were not visible. When I actually see the dice rolls, it makes it feel like the dice is playing a huge role in the battle. In the next PI game after Victoria 2 there might even be a sound effect and animation of throwing a dice. That would be great, wouldn't it...


OFFTOPIC: Is it "die" or "dice"?

 

[Andrelvis]

I liked it more when the randomness was happening "under the hood" and dice rolls were not visible. When I actually see the dice rolls, it makes it feel like the dice is playing a huge role in the battle. In the next PI game after Victoria 2 there might even be a sound effect and animation of throwing a dice. That would be great, wouldn't it...


OFFTOPIC: Is it "die" or "dice"?

I believe "dice" is the singular form and "die" is the plural form".

 

[Maginor]

I believe "dice" is the singular form and "die" is the plural form".

It is the other way around.