This sound like a good idea, but OTOH:
Will the AI generally pay more attention to Supply Limits?
HoD DD 4 – Wars and The Military
- Thread starter Darkrenown
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This sound like a good idea, but OTOH:
Will the AI generally pay more attention to Supply Limits?
Well, States, but yes. Mass unjustified conquest is not meant to be easy.
Battle Plans! Oh I am such a sucker for visual stuff :blush:
Regardless, the changes look amazing. This is far more than AHD brought, if I remember correctly.
Regardless, the changes look amazing. This is far more than AHD brought, if I remember correctly.
Sounds like many of the things, I really want! The only thing I think that is missing is an Upgrade button for Brigades. So you don't have to disband and reraise Brigades to give them better weapons.
Rereading the DD makes me wonder if you've buffed forts as well. Somehow I don't think the impact at the moment is that much (i.e. I don't see that I'm loosing less troops then normal, nor does the AI etc.) Is this effect significant or should I just generally pay closer attention to whats happening 
?
?
Can I ask whether you plan to include a way of designing templates for armies, and optionally basing military recruitment around these templates? I always use the same compositions for my armies depending on the time period, and it is so painful micromanaging the individual brigades during recruitment drives. This alone has stopped me from playing games with the UK, Russia and China, and it becomes incredibly tedious in the late game for most of the GPs. It's pointless microing which sucks up time and enthusiasm I want to spend microing my economy or wars.
Rereading the DD makes me wonder if you've buffed forts as well. Somehow I don't think the impact at the moment is that much (i.e. I don't see that I'm loosing less troops then normal, nor does the AI etc.) Is this effect significant or should I just generally pay closer attention to whats happening
Can't blame you for missing it, since it isn't shown, but forts have always reduced the defender's losses by 10% per fort level.
Wonderful and welcome changes!
I'm a bit curious about the changes to guards. I understand them from a gameplay perspective but I don't really understand them from an immersion or historical perspective. Is there any justification for making guards weak on defense?
I think you might want to think of renaming the cavalry types for the same reason. The names are cool but they don't seem to correspond to anything anymore.
I love the idea that I can kick the UK out of Belize, Guiana, South Africa, Gibraltar, Malta, or Hong Kong (or probably many other little enclaves) without having to actually invade Britain! (same with French in Pondicherry or Danes-- I mean Prussians in Accra)
EDIT: Also, three hurrahs for the HoD folks for keeping us in the loop and answering questions in this thread! (I wish the rest of the teams would take a note on how much we appreciate this, and how much it gets us excited to play and purchase the game when we have meaningful answers and comments from developers)
I'm a bit curious about the changes to guards. I understand them from a gameplay perspective but I don't really understand them from an immersion or historical perspective. Is there any justification for making guards weak on defense?
I think you might want to think of renaming the cavalry types for the same reason. The names are cool but they don't seem to correspond to anything anymore.
I love the idea that I can kick the UK out of Belize, Guiana, South Africa, Gibraltar, Malta, or Hong Kong (or probably many other little enclaves) without having to actually invade Britain! (same with French in Pondicherry or Danes-- I mean Prussians in Accra)
EDIT: Also, three hurrahs for the HoD folks for keeping us in the loop and answering questions in this thread! (I wish the rest of the teams would take a note on how much we appreciate this, and how much it gets us excited to play and purchase the game when we have meaningful answers and comments from developers)
No, but why not just set a rally point with merge on and use the build army screen to build units in army sized batches?
I understand that, but it seems that both this plus the massive increase in required jingoism is going to lead to the game becoming boring and deterministic. The goal appears to be to make doing anything other than progressing to a historical 1936 world map more tedious and less productive.
I'm not a "blob" type player, but I do prefer to play ahistorically and don't like being held down to predetermined core lands. These changes seem to be a deliberate attempt to push players like me to the sidelines.
If this is the direction that's being taken, we should be able to at least justify multiple acquire state or place in the sun CBs consecutively before going to war to have a chance of reducing infamy a bit in exchange for lots of time spent justifying. It's not like the you don't end up getting 99% of the possible infamy most of the time anyway.
There's no increase in Jingoism, the only change there is reducing it when you have a valid CB.
Because if you do that and build more than one "batch", then they auto-merge into a blob and you need to resort them anyway.
So, it can reduce total casulties up to 60%
(Or does it only work like Military Organisation?). I guess I should pay closer atenttion then; but this is of course a very great incentive for enough Artillery/Engineer support. Well done!
Because, I'd think, it forces you to build one army at a time and no more - slowing the process considerably when you are, for example, building a newborn Germany's army.
I was assuming you have the common sense to move your new army out of the way before the 2nd batch appears
Or setting separated RPs and building a separate army around each.
Aww
I do that, but it's clunky. I've got to remember exactly what my template is every time I recruit an army (which can be difficult considering it changes depending on tech). I've got to be careful not to recruit too many brigades from the same POP such that the POP doesn't get disproportionately damaged during a battle. It's impractical to have one rally point for a large empire, and if I have more than one I have to be careful about where I recruit from. It means I'm stuck recruiting one army at a time. If your tag changes to a union tag, all hell breaks loose. If I accidentally recruit a brigade on a province separate from the rally point by water (say Alaska or Cuba), I either have to disband or send over a convoy to deliver it manually. Recruiting colonial armies also remains a pain, especially if my colonial empire is not contiguous. If I forget to change the rally point after recruiting more than two armies, I have to sort the brigades manually.
There are lots of little niggly problems by relying on rally points alone. No one of them is particularly annoying, much less game breaking, but combined they make recruitment of large armies unintuitive, awkward and not very fun.
I was assuming you have the common sense to move your new army out of the way before the 2nd batch appears
When all your regulars are done before your artillery and already merged, that doesn't really work. Multiple RPs are also difficult to utilize from the build screen because recruitable brigades are blobbed together by entire continents.
Fair enough, I must've misread that. Any comment on the rest of my post? I still think the current system works just fine, and restricting it moves the focus too much to "make anything except wars for cores unfun".
Justifying goals at war was a player only exploit we wanted rid of, and being able to fake up multiple goals doesn't jive well with justified goals being Jingoism-free. Besides, if "It's not like the you don't end up getting 99% of the possible infamy most of the time anyway" is correct you shouldn't notice any difference anyway