Imagine a Victoria 3 with a HOI4 Combat system...

[Crazy-Krauthead]

With Infantry, Cavallry and artilleryunits in the early games, Guards, engineers and Scouting Ballons in the Midgame, Machine Guns and Zeppelins in the late midgame and fighters, bombers and tanks in the endgame...^^

Or Imagine a HOI4 with a complex Vic2 Economy

 

[Grand Historian]

I wouldn't want it. HoI4's combat is not suited to the majority of Vicky 2's timeframe or even the realities of Trench Warfare.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

I wouldn't want it. HoI4's combat is not suited to the majority of Vicky 2's timeframe or even the realities of Trench Warfare.

Victoria 2 combatsystem is even less. The napoleonic wars would fit to it, but the bunkersystem of HOI4 fits quite better for the trenchwarfare than the fortsystem of vic2. Also traveling and bombing with Zeppelins and later planes were a huge aspect arround 1900 which is completely ignored in vic2. The italians allready used Zeppelins for bombing in the italian-ottoman war for Lybia and Aegaean islands.

Also in vic 2 u can always see by "magic" what the enemy has. The effort to use units for scouting like in hoi4 makes that much more realistic, especially in trench wafare.

Also is the "dicesystem" of EUIV and Vic 2 really annoying. Its really pretty random and when u get 3 times a 0 or 1 in a row u can lose big battles for no sense vs clearly inferior enemies.

The combatprogress in hoi4 is more based on techs, equipment, units, stats etc. and less on "luck", i prefer that.

And: In the lategame its in vic2 annoying that u have to manage every single unit in big wars, like in Africa. I like the system of hoi4 that you give an army an order and it plans its offensies and defensives itself, instead that u always have to do every fucking single thing in micromanagement.

And last but not least are the hoi4 fights much better looking and have a higher atmosphere than the fights in vic 2

 

[Kovax]

I do agree that the differences between a high die roll and a low roll are too extreme. Basically, you can have an army of 30,000 men chased off the field by a small group of 6000, or stack-wiped by an army not much larger. On the other hand, you can wreck that 6000 man unit with less than 100 casualties. If such radical outcomes happened once or twice in a game when terrain, generalship, or other factors didn't make it credible, it would be a rare and memorable event when it did occur, as such things are in reality. If they happen a dozen times or more, it's blatantly unrealistic. Rather than a 0-9 roll, it should be 0-9 plus some base figure (such as D10+10, giving results in the 10-20 range), so the random aspect isn't the difference between an absolute massacre one way or the other. I've rolled too many 0's and 1's in a row in too many combats not to hate the current system.

 

[Grand Historian]

Victoria 2 combatsystem is even less. The napoleonic wars would fit to it, but the bunkersystem of HOI4 fits quite better for the trenchwarfare than the fortsystem of vic2. Also traveling and bombing with Zeppelins and later planes were a huge aspect arround 1900 which is completely ignored in vic2. The italians allready used Zeppelins for bombing in the italian-ottoman war for Lybia and Aegaean islands.

Also in vic 2 u can always see by "magic" what the enemy has. The effort to use units for scouting like in hoi4 makes that much more realistic, especially in trench wafare.

Also is the "dicesystem" of EUIV and Civ 2 really annoying. Its really pretty random and when u get 3 times a 0 or 1 in a row u can lose big battles for no sense vs clearly inferior enemies.

The combatprogress in hoi4 is more based on techs, equipment, units, stats etc. and less on "luck", i prefer that.

And: In the lategame its in vic2 annoying that u have to manage every single unit in big wars, like in Africa. I like the system of hoi4 that you give an army an order and it plans its offensies and defensives itself, instead that u always have to do every fucking single thing in micromanagement.

And last but not least are the hoi4 fights much better looking and have a higher atmosphere than the fights in vic 2

You do realize that trench warfare only applies for the last few decades of Vicky, and that the overwhelming majority of gametime would be spent fighting in a largely similar fashion as the Napoleonic Wars, right? Even then Vicky 2 still represents meatgrinders like Verdun (which went on for 302 days, which absolutely would not happen in HOI4 because of breakthrough and tanks) better.

Hoi4 doesn't have a monopoly on FoW, and still uses dice for tactics and initiative, albeit ones you can't see. Less variables on the dice rolls would be nice, but that's easily achievable by shortening the possible range of the dice roll and making other modifiers (terrain, generalship, army composition) matter more. Tech is absolutely vital to army progression in Vicky 2, moreso in HOI4 because you can encircle there, I don't know where you're getting off thinking you can not upgrade your artillery or theory and still have a decent chance of victory.

If you like automanagement, good for you.

Comparing a game made six years after Vicky 2 and saying it looks better is just silly.

 

[Cypres]

I would agree, the Hoi4 combat system does not fit vic2 that well, neither does the front-backrow combat system. I think for a possible Vic3 or any pdx game from now on the devs can come up with a better and more elegant system than the dusted 15 years old 2 row one

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

You do realize that trench warfare only applies for the last few decades of Vicky, and that the overwhelming majority of gametime would be spent fighting in a largely similar fashion as the Napoleonic Wars, right? Even then Vicky 2 still represents meatgrinders like Verdun (which went on for 302 days, which absolutely would not happen in HOI4 because of breakthrough and tanks) better.

Hoi4 doesn't have a monopoly on FoW, and still uses dice for tactics and initiative, albeit ones you can't see. Less variables on the dice rolls would be nice, but that's easily achievable by shortening the possible range of the dice roll and making other modifiers (terrain, generalship, army composition) matter more. Tech is absolutely vital to army progression in Vicky 2, moreso in HOI4 because you can encircle there, I don't know where you're getting off thinking you can not upgrade your artillery or theory and still have a decent chance of victory.

If you like automanagement, good for you.

Comparing a game made six years after Vicky 2 and saying it looks better is just silly.

Trenchwarfare was allready used in the Crimean war(1854) and the Russian Japanaese War (1904). Just in America they used napoleon tactics till the great war.

As in HoI4 AFTER the napoleonic wars the armies always tried to flank and encircle the other army. Like at Verdun or at Tannenberg.

In the Vic 2 Combatsystem its not possible to encircle enemy armies, they can even retreat through enemy lines.

The Bunkersystem of HOI4 reduces greatly the damage the army takes in combat. I wish such an effect in Vicy too. Seriously, the Forts just slow down the occupation but thats allready it. It would be more realistic also.

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: Why should Victoria 3 have the exact same combatsystem like Victoria 2? I Mean if the implent a new one u can decide which of the games u wanna play. Having 2 twingames give u less options to choose.

 

[Cypres]

That is not quite true, forts in vic2 give a discipline and tactics bonus that reduces casualties. However is despise the fort system vic2 has. I would like the system imperator is going for, with forts beeing powerful but very costly.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

That is not quite true, forts in vic2 give a discipline and tactics bonus that reduces casualties. However is despise the fort system vic2 has. I would like the system imperator is going for, with forts beeing powerful but very costly.

Ah ok, havent played Imperator for a while maybe its time to change that^^

 

[Cypres]

Its one of the changes they plan with the next patch. The patch is a huge step in the right direction but from what I read from dds so far it isn't going far enough. It is beyond me why pdx uses such a dull combat system in the Era of Hannibal, Scipio and ceasar. At the very least they could have added the general skill tree from Hoi4.

 

[Kovax]

Trenchwarfare was allready used in the Crimean war(1854) and the Russian Japanaese War (1904). Just in America they used napoleon tactics till the great war.

That's only true until late in the ACW. By the end of the war, the armies began making increased use of defensible terrain features, dug entrenchments, and built other field fortifications where they could. It was painfully obvious that standing out in the open was suicidal, and Napoleonic era tactics had already gone out the window for the most part, except where armies on the move encountered the enemy and engaged without time to prepare in advance. The shift from linear warfare to trench warfare, with maneuvers to outflank the enemy positions, was rather apparent.

The difference between that and WWI trench warfare was that in Europe, with a much deeper manpower pool to draw upon, the manned trenches extended across the entire border, so outflanking became far more difficult.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

That's only true until late in the ACW. By the end of the war, the armies began making increased use of defensible terrain features, dug entrenchments, and built other field fortifications where they could. It was painfully obvious that standing out in the open was suicidal, and Napoleonic era tactics had already gone out the window for the most part, except where armies on the move encountered the enemy and engaged without time to prepare in advance. The shift from linear warfare to trench warfare, with maneuvers to outflank the enemy positions, was rather apparent.

The difference between that and WWI trench warfare was that in Europe, with a much deeper manpower pool to draw upon, the manned trenches extended across the entire border, so outflanking became far more difficult.

I just replied to the post of "Grand Historian" who wrote, that trenchwarfare exists in Vicy just in the endgame, which is just not true and also hostorical inaccurate.

However, the digging in ability starts much earlier ingame and thats also realistic.

And aye, I havent looked up the whole american civil war tactics, just looked up for the exact dates of trenchwarfare on wiki. Theres written, that in America Napoleonic Tactics were used endure the 19th century. So I trust and believe you, when u say that in the endgame of the civil war that changed.

In europe many wars didt end up in trenchwarfare just because overwhelming victories of one party, like the Prussians+Germans over the french armies in the Franco Prussian war. The Prussian mobilized much faster and were able to encircle lots of smaller french armies so there was no chance for a big dig in to trenchwarfare.

Also the Italian-ottoman war and the American-Spanish war were very unbalanced so the Italians an the Americans reached fast vitories over the inferior enemies.

Trenchwarfar always showed up when 2 nearly even huge armies werent able to outflank and encircle each other.

However, I still think for the endgame a combatsystem like in HoI4 would bring fresh wind into a Vicy3.

I still cant imagine that people like to handle 10+ armies on 5 continents at same time and enyoing it. Especially fighting in Africa after 1875 is annoying as the AI always attacks your weakest armies or runs away of u strongest while u pay full attention on europe. And u still have to keep an eye in Africa for the terrain(desserts+mountains and jungle).

And Autofunktion like in HoI4, to give an army the command to hold the line in that area and make the offense and defense decisions on their own, so that u can focus on the mainbattlefield is in my eye still a more than welcome option.

Also to see and hear a bit more than just 2 men standing shooting without sounds and ur clicks.

I like the sounds of HOI4, to see heavy artillery regiments firing, planes flying, tanks breaking through a.s.o..

In a WW1 scenario with Zeppelins, WW1 planes, heavy and light artillery units, flamethrowerunits, Infantry, Tanks scouting balloons, cavallry and machine gun units it could be amazing.

Also more realsitic, as small arms and machine guns are really 2 complete different types of weapons. To separate machine guns with their own producionline like with planes and tanks would also be more realistic, instead of just giving an statsupgrade for all units.

I mean imagine conquerinng a country and the units fire on the ground while the red baron and his flying circus fly above them...or Zeppelins over London...^^

It would be some completely fresh and new for vicy, and who prefers vicy2 can still play vicy2.

 

[Grand Historian]

I just replied to the post of "Grand Historian" who wrote, that trenchwarfare exists in Vicy just in the endgame, which is just not true and also hostorical inaccurate.

First, I said 'last few decades', not 'endgame'. Secondly, while trench warfare was operationally and tactically pioneered during the last year of American Civil War and during some sieges of the Crimean War, on a strategic level it was not fully-tested or utilized until WW1 (as best evidenced by the swift conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war in its opening moves when the theater was relatively small) when it became what is commonly recognized as trench warfare; having easy access to an early dig-in modifier in the first decades of the game is a good way to simulate the creation of the earthworks and breastworks that did predate the trenches of the western and Italian fronts.

If you can't imagine why or how people like to micromanage in a game that rewards micromanagement, then I don't know how to explain it to you. There are certainly many quality of life improvements that a Vicky 3 could bring when it comes to managing armies and various theaters, but I don't want important mechanics designed around an automanager like in HOI4 with its planning.

Sounds, much like graphics, are not something to hold against Vicky 2 in comparison to a game made half a decade later, or assume that HOI4 has a monopoly on. More variance would be nice, but it is not and should not be the selling point of a Vicky 3 game; telling the people who would not prefer a HOI4-style of army management in a theoretical Vicky 3 that they should stick to Vicky 2 is not just an insult to what Vicky is supposed to be, it's an insult to the core fanbase of Vicky that has kept it's modding scene thriving (and frankly the game itself playable) a decade after its release. I don't want to be rude, but most of us would care more about getting a Vicky whose code isn't held together by magic glue, its cash liquidity isn't totally indecipherable to mortal eyes, and whose pop political allegiances and migration patterns can be better understood and affected rather than a couple of new sounds and models on the map.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

First, I said 'last few decades', not 'endgame'. Secondly, while trench warfare was operationally and tactically pioneered during the last year of American Civil War and during some sieges of the Crimean War, on a strategic level it was not fully-tested or utilized until WW1 (as best evidenced by the swift conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war in its opening moves when the theater was relatively small) when it became what is commonly recognized as trench warfare; having easy access to an early dig-in modifier in the first decades of the game is a good way to simulate the creation of the earthworks and breastworks that did predate the trenches of the western and Italian fronts.

If you can't imagine why or how people like to micromanage in a game that rewards micromanagement, then I don't know how to explain it to you. There are certainly many quality of life improvements that a Vicky 3 could bring when it comes to managing armies and various theaters, but I don't want important mechanics designed around an automanager like in HOI4 with its planning.

Sounds, much like graphics, are not something to hold against Vicky 2 in comparison to a game made half a decade later, or assume that HOI4 has a monopoly on. More variance would be nice, but it is not and should not be the selling point of a Vicky 3 game; telling the people who would not prefer a HOI4-style of army management in a theoretical Vicky 3 that they should stick to Vicky 2 is not just an insult to what Vicky is supposed to be, it's an insult to the core fanbase of Vicky that has kept it's modding scene thriving (and frankly the game itself playable) a decade after its release. I don't want to be rude, but most of us would care more about getting a Vicky whose code isn't held together by magic glue, its cash liquidity isn't totally indecipherable to mortal eyes, and whose pop political allegiances and migration patterns can be better understood and affected rather than a couple of new sounds and models on the map.

For one who doesnt want to be rude u fail that goal horribly from the start. You were rude from the beginning, your posts are full of gibes and now u complain you feel insulted of my opinion - LOL

Also is ur historical knowledge really bad for someone who names himself "Grand Historian".

Dude you really should work on your social skills.

 

[General WVPM]

I hope Victoria 3 focuses more on the 19th century and ignores the 20th century largely.
If it were to run from 1815-1915, you do not have to worry about airplanes or tanks too much.

As for the combat system of HOI4 (which is very similar to previous HOI's), that would be terrible imo. The reinforcement chance is worse than V2's dice roll. IRL armies of hundreds of thousands would fight eachother, like at the Battle of Leipzig. You can't just rout 2 divisions and force entire armies to retreat (unless it involves a mass rout). I don't even understand why HOI would make it like this, since this is not how battles were fought in WW2 and the mini provinces make battles smaller anyway.

As for a better combat system for Victoria, I think I managed to improve it quite a lot in my personal mod by massively buffing technology, so that dice rolls are less relevant. If I roll a 1 and you a 9, I will still lose. But the smaller differences pale in comparison to superior tech. I also removed most general buffs to the dice, only +1's are left. This makes it so much better. Before you could just buy generals and eventually get a +2 attack +2 defence general. No general in history won just by having good traits, they split their enemies, pinned them or destroyed their morale via surprise. Also, the frontline in Victoria should not decrease until trench warfare begins.

 

[Kovax]

I agree with just about everything that Grand Historian said about the proposed "improvements" in graphics and sound, but disagree with HOW he said it.

Turning the Victoria series into yet another shallow "eye candy" game would essentially ruin it for its most devoted fanbase (not that eye candy is bad, but it's much lower on my priority list). Rather than adding HOI4 graphics and sound to Victoria 3, I'd rather see more V2 mechanics added to make HOI5.

 

[Grand Historian]

Also is ur historical knowledge really bad for someone who names himself "Grand Historian".

Dude you really should work on your social skills.

I'm just going to let this speak for itself.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

I hope Victoria 3 focuses more on the 19th century and ignores the 20th century largely.
If it were to run from 1815-1915, you do not have to worry about airplanes or tanks too much.

As for the combat system of HOI4 (which is very similar to previous HOI's), that would be terrible imo. The reinforcement chance is worse than V2's dice roll. IRL armies of hundreds of thousands would fight eachother, like at the Battle of Leipzig. You can't just rout 2 divisions and force entire armies to retreat (unless it involves a mass rout). I don't even understand why HOI would make it like this, since this is not how battles were fought in WW2 and the mini provinces make battles smaller anyway.

As for a better combat system for Victoria, I think I managed to improve it quite a lot in my personal mod by massively buffing technology, so that dice rolls are less relevant. If I roll a 1 and you a 9, I will still lose. But the smaller differences pale in comparison to superior tech. I also removed most general buffs to the dice, only +1's are left. This makes it so much better. Before you could just buy generals and eventually get a +2 attack +2 defence general. No general in history won just by having good traits, they split their enemies, pinned them or destroyed their morale via surprise. Also, the frontline in Victoria should not decrease until trench warfare begins.

I agree with just about everything that Grand Historian said about the proposed "improvements" in graphics and sound, but disagree with HOW he said it.

Turning the Victoria series into yet another shallow "eye candy" game would essentially ruin it for its most devoted fanbase (not that eye candy is bad, but it's much lower on my priority list). Rather than adding HOI4 graphics and sound to Victoria 3, I'd rather see more V2 mechanics added to make HOI5.

I see ur point. in the HOI4 Forum there are a lot which stil prefer HOI2, cuz its in their eyes more complex. But in Multiplayer they prefer HOI4, cuz u cant be everywhere at the same time.

Thats the thing whats boring me beside the stupid dicerolls: The Midgame global conflict. Solo u can pause each day and look everwhere if one of ur armies got a shitty diceroll, if your genereal things the best route should be through mountains or dessert insteadt of greenland(a problem ALL paradoxgames share), if the AI sneaks into your colonies with huge armies from where the hell ever it got them a.s.o.

In Multiplayer that wont work.

Ok to make the combatfield looking and sounding a bit better is just cosmetic aye. It would still be nice.

But the fortificationsystem should really really be overhauld.

Ater all ur arguments I see that my propose of a HOI4 combat system was a thought in the wrong way. Maybe paradox needs to create something new between vicy 2 and Hoi4 to make the game more interesting for multiplayer. And at least a less boring combatrollsystem...

 

[Gutie]

I do agree that the differences between a high die roll and a low roll are too extreme. Basically, you can have an army of 30,000 men chased off the field by a small group of 6000, or stack-wiped by an army not much larger. On the other hand, you can wreck that 6000 man unit with less than 100 casualties. If such radical outcomes happened once or twice in a game when terrain, generalship, or other factors didn't make it credible, it would be a rare and memorable event when it did occur, as such things are in reality. If they happen a dozen times or more, it's blatantly unrealistic. Rather than a 0-9 roll, it should be 0-9 plus some base figure (such as D10+10, giving results in the 10-20 range), so the random aspect isn't the difference between an absolute massacre one way or the other. I've rolled too many 0's and 1's in a row in too many combats not to hate the current system.

Editing unit files to make the stat difference in units more drastic and edit the leader traits to be more impactful negates this bringing a bit more realism. It blunts most of the dice roll silliness. while still having an impact (especially river crossings/etc), commanders being mediocre/skilled/etc.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

HoI I don't know, but for sure the combat system of V2 is too simple. Also remember the popular "barricades" in the city streets, this should be rapresented in some way