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

[Grand Historian]

I didn't say "somewhat reasonably" but "exact opposite of your statement".

Fair, and I find that erroneous. Regardless, the point still stands: if you have to reach for a total overhaul mod to say that it *can* be made to fit within what should be just Vicky's *endgame*, then HOI4's system is still not suited for Vicky.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Fair, and I find that erroneous. Regardless, the point still stands: if you have to reach for a total overhaul mod to say that it *can* be made to fit within what should be just Vicky's *endgame*, then HOI4's system is still not suited for Vicky.

A mod cannot magically change the combat system. It can only influence the values the system has to work with. Therefore the combat system is fine for this task. It's merely a balancing question of the units involved.

 

[Ruck]

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

If you have a combat system in mind which is more similiar to ww2 (fast movement war, blitzkrieg like), then this wouldnt be very realistic for the time frame (mostly) given.

But I would fully support a battleplanner system like HOI4 has, at least unlocked after a certain tech (somewhere around 1870 or 1880 maybe). So often Im in the mood to reeinstall VicII but then remind myself of the big micro hell which wars are from 1870/1880+ and don´t do it because of that. My last games with Prussia/Germany, France, Japan and Russia which I indeed played to the end date where all extremely peaceful because of that, as I just simply had no interest in doing any war with so many divisions, which I all have to manually move.

Also I would like to have a similiar division planner like we have in HOI4, might be not super realistic for the start of the game, but I could leave with that. Victoria just has this big problem that military warfare on the start of the game is so much different to mid/end game´s timeframe, so some abstractions is needed somewhere, if we dont want Paradox to overengineer the game.

Some improvements which I would like to see to the actual combat mechanics would be to make Artillery and Machine guns much more important than what we have in VicII. In Particular big economies like France and Germany should have to heavily concentrate on producing very large amounts of Artillery/Machine guns and ammo for these, to have them survive the big and grindy wars from 1890+ .

 

[Cypres]

Moving the armies manually isn't that big of a deal imo, in fact it is less micro than Eu4 late game imo because the ai is dumber. What is a pain in the butt is mobilization tho(I still cannot believe they didnt copy hoi3 mob system) how I deal with it is by beeing permanently mobilized and only demob if my mobsize increased

 

[General WVPM]

Moving the armies manually isn't that big of a deal imo, in fact it is less micro than Eu4 late game imo because the ai is dumber. What is a pain in the butt is mobilization tho(I still cannot believe they didnt copy hoi3 mob system) how I deal with it is by beeing permanently mobilized and only demob if my mobsize increased

For those of you that don't know the HOI3 system or why it's so good:
In HOI3 you can make divisions as reserves, this means they are deployed as a placeholder division with barely any strength. Once you mobilize, they are reinforced to full size divisions. This allows the player to plan the mobilization ahead.

I would also really recommend being able to mobilize units other than infantry.

 

[Grand Historian]

A mod cannot magically change the combat system. It can only influence the values the system has to work with. Therefore the combat system is fine for this task. It's merely a balancing question of the units involved.

If it changes the values and variables to a degree in which they are mostly unrecognizable from vanilla gameplay, it has effectively changed the combat system. And, once again, the devs of the Great War are making their own game about the Great War for a reason.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

If you have a combat system in mind which is more similiar to ww2 (fast movement war, blitzkrieg like), then this wouldnt be very realistic for the time frame (mostly) given.

But I would fully support a battleplanner system like HOI4 has, at least unlocked after a certain tech (somewhere around 1870 or 1880 maybe). So often Im in the mood to reeinstall VicII but then remind myself of the big micro hell which wars are from 1870/1880+ and don´t do it because of that. My last games with Prussia/Germany, France, Japan and Russia which I indeed played to the end date where all extremely peaceful because of that, as I just simply had no interest in doing any war with so many divisions, which I all have to manually move.

Also I would like to have a similiar division planner like we have in HOI4, might be not super realistic for the start of the game, but I could leave with that. Victoria just has this big problem that military warfare on the start of the game is so much different to mid/end game´s timeframe, so some abstractions is needed somewhere, if we dont want Paradox to overengineer the game.

Some improvements which I would like to see to the actual combat mechanics would be to make Artillery and Machine guns much more important than what we have in VicII. In Particular big economies like France and Germany should have to heavily concentrate on producing very large amounts of Artillery/Machine guns and ammo for these, to have them survive the big and grindy wars from 1890+ .

I had frontlines in mind not Blitzkrieg

In HOI4 u also often have static frontlines if the 2 opposing armies are nearly even or the defender has built bunkers and in such situations offensives bring just small Land reclamation with high casualties.

And the fastest armies at that time were cavallryunits which could sometimes strike "Blitzlike", regarding the Cavallrybattles between Poland and the Sowjet Union directly after WW1, after which the frontline moved very fast.

And aye, i hate the micromangemengt in vicy 2 after 1970 too-especially when Africa is getting colonized u have to watch such a large territory...most big wars u have to watch at many continents the same time.

That´s why I would prefer a system like in HoI4 in which u can let the AI take over at less important frontlines and u yourself can focus on the main frontlines.

Also, a closed frontline like in WW1 is very very very hard to create in vicy 2-and if u manage it u have to control 15+ armies every day...

In HoI u draw a frontline and the armies take their places themself and close da line.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

As i see, the "Grand Historian" "respectfully disagrees" with my explanation what I had in mind with my original post. Seems he knows better what I had in mind than me myself

 

[Ruck]

I had frontlines in mind not Blitzkrieg

In HOI4 u also often have static frontlines if the 2 opposing armies are nearly even or the defender has built bunkers and in such situations offensives bring just small just small Land reclamation with high casualties.

And the fastes armies at that time were cavallryunits which could sometimes strike "Blitzlike", regarding the Cavallrybattles between Poland and the Sowjet Union directly after WW1, after which the frontline moved very fast.

And aye, i hate the micromangemengt in vicy 2 after 1970 too-especially when Africa is getting colonized u have to watch such a large territory...most big wars u have to watch at many continents the same time.

That´s why i would prefer a system like in HoI4 in which u can let the AI take over at less important frontlines and u yourself can focus on the main frontlines.

Also, a closed frontline like in WW1 is very very very hard to create in vicy 2-and if u manage it u have to control 15+ armies every day...

In HoI u draw a frontline and the armies take their places themself and close da line.

Well, the reasons beeing why Cavalry was still used in large number in eastern europe was more a problem of geography, urbanization, infrastructure and supply problems on everything east of Warszawa. The distances between larger cities (and therefore supply possibilties) where large, compared to mid and western europe. Cavalry had the advantage to take more supply with you, be much faster than infantry and also faster in rough terrain and not bound to streets, which was an advantage for cavalry even up to the 2nd world war, compared to trucks, but not half-trucks, although no one really had half-trucks in any good numbers.

Although the wording is getting complicated here in my personal opinion, Im not sure if the word "cavalry" is really apropriated for the soldiers/divisions on the eastern front (1914+) of if we should better name then something like "mounted infantry divisions". Most, but not all real fighting was done on foot and not on horseback as far as I know. I see there a difference compared to f.e. specialized cavalry like lancers, which were fighting along (or better say "supplemented" ?) napoleonic like line battle infantry, on their flanks and tried to surround the enemy and or attack, defend the flanks or attack enemy supply lines in pre-machinegun/trench times.

I guess a way to abstract this into an paradox game would be something like a new troop type called "mounted infantry" which has the same fighting abilities and sizes like normal infantry but is way more costly and has the advantage of beeing faster. Then in eastern europe the supply limits could be way lower and so you have decide to either take slow infantry or mounted but costly infantry with you. But the costs for this should be really immensely high. Horses were extremely costly and if you want your 1000 division soldiers to travel on horseback you need 1000+ horses (should be a ressource in VicIII). So that it shouldnt make any sense to build them for western europe, but only in eastern europe and maybe in some places like north africa.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

Well, the reasons beeing why Cavalry was still used in large number in eastern europe was more a problem of geography, urbanization, infrastructure and supply problems on everything east of Warszawa. The distances between larger cities (and therefore supply possibilties) where large, compared to mid and western europe. Cavalry had the advantage to take more supply with you, be much faster than infantry and also faster in rough terrain and not bound to streets, which was an advantage for cavalry even up to the 2nd world war, compared to trucks, but not half-trucks, although no one really had half-trucks in any good numbers.

Although the wording is getting complicated here in my personal opinion, Im not sure if the word "cavalry" is really apropriated for the soldiers/divisions on the eastern front (1914+) of if we should better name then something like "mounted infantry divisions". Most, but not all real fighting was done on foot and not on horseback as far as I know. I see there a difference compared to f.e. specialized cavalry like lancers, which were fighting along (or better say "supplemented" ?) napoleonic like line battle infantry, on their flanks and tried to surround the enemy and or attack, defend the flanks or attack enemy supply lines in pre-machinegun/trench times.

I guess a way to abstract this into an paradox game would be something like a new troop type called "mounted infantry" which has the same fighting abilities and sizes like normal infantry but is way more costly and has the advantage of beeing faster. Then in eastern europe the supply limits could be way lower and so you have decide to either take slow infantry or mounted but costly infantry with you. But the costs for this should be really immensely high. Horses were extremely costly and if you want your 1000 division soldiers to travel on horseback you need 1000+ horses (should be a ressource in VicIII). So that it shouldnt make any sense to build them for western europe, but only in eastern europe and maybe in some places like north africa.

Aye and nope. Mostly Cavallry units used the horses for fast travelling and fought lying on the ground or standing in trenches like modern motorized infantry also does aye, but in this case the Polish Lancers made the "Wonder of Warsaw". In the night between the 13th and the 14th August after hours of firing combat polish Ulahns broke through the soviet lines which iniciated the collapse of the soviet frontline.

Although the Polish used also tanks, artillery, armored trains and lots of infantry, their cavallry, mostly lancers, made the breakthrough and pushed "blitzlike" in 2 days deep into soviet territory.

The Soviets had some lancerregiments also so we had in this war cause of this "Blitz" Maneuvres some Lancers vs Lancers or Ulahns vs Cossacs battles.

But those close combats cavallryfights were rare and happened mostly in "lower teched" regions like eastern europe or arabia during WW1.

Theres one point we often forget: Ammunition.

Bullets were expensive and not available in masses. Remember: The Infantry still used Bayonets in ww1. For close combats or when they ran out of Ammo...

And especially in eastern europe the armies were "poor", so Lancers were still an option when both sides run short on Ammo. The polish also tried a counterattack in ww2 with lancers, but at this point they had to realize, that this wont work against the Germans.

And remember: even in the US Civil War lots of battles were fought in Close combat with swords and Bayonets when both sides ran ot of ammo...and that were richer western armies...

This Photo shows the polish Ulahns on a maneuvre short before the start o WW2. You can cleary see the Lances.

Or here an Siberian(russian) Cossac at the end of the 19th century.

 

[JBolt]

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.

How did America use Napoleon's tactics till the Great War? The American Civil War should have been the biggest tip off to Europeans that trench warfare would be the end result of modern warfare, because these tactics, much of the technology, and the ideas pioneered in America, by Americans, were used by the slower Europeans decades later.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

How did America use Napoleon's tactics till the Great War? The American Civil War should have been the biggest tip off to Europeans that trench warfare would be the end result of modern warfare, because these tactics, much of the technology, and the ideas pioneered in America, by Americans, were used by the slower Europeans decades later.

Out of Wikipedia:

The evolution of military strategy continued in the American Civil War (1861–65). The practice of strategy was advanced by generals such as Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, all of whom had been influenced by the feats of Napoleon (Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was said to have carried a book of Napoleon's maxims with him.)
However, the adherence to the Napoleonic principles in the face of technological advances such as the long-range infantry breechloader rifles and minie ball guns generally led to disastrous consequences for both the Union and Confederate forces and populace. The time and space in which war was waged changed as well. Railroads enabled swift movement of large forces but the manoeuvring was constrained to narrow, vulnerable corridors. Steam power and ironclads changed transport and combat at sea. Newly invented telegraph enabled more rapid communication between armies and their headquarters capitals. Combat was still usually waged by opposing divisions with skirmish lines on rural battlefields, violent naval engagements by cannon-armed sailing or steam-powered vessels, and assault on military forces defending a town.
...

The much more accurate weapons and the breachloaders changed warfare dramatically.

After the Napoleonic Wars the Prussian Army used Breachloaders. They showed their effectivness in slaying the german Rebells 1849. It also showed up the big difference in the Prussian Austrian War 1866. The Prussians used Breachloaders and so the infantry could lay down or hide and shoot on the Austrian enemies, while the Austrians used muzzle loaded arms and had to stand or kneel to load their weapons. The result was a horrible defeat of the Austrians.

The Prussians used under von Moltke new strategys which were very effective with these new weapons while the rest of the world still struggled to find a new "good" way to kill each other.

Their enemies(Austrians, Frenchs) saw that in battle and learned from it, so moved forward to trenchwarfare. So did the French, British, Ottomans and the Russians in the crimean war(1853-1856) in which they used trench warfare. That was a few years BEFORE the american civlil war...

The Americans were first confronted with modern trench warfare in ww1, they had no "big" enemies between civil war and ww1 to learn from or to learn with them

The Spanish American War and the conquest for Hawai were just small skirmishes, no huge wars like the civil war or the wars in europe.

 

[General WVPM]

Many battles during the American Civil War were fought similarly to the Napoleonic battles because of the gunpowder smoke and early on the smoothbore weapons. Smoothbore weapons are not accurate long range and the large smoke cloud severely limited the ability to aim far. This forced the infantry to fight in rather close quarters. The machine gun did not play a great role yet either. It only really gained it's role in The Great War.

At the start of The Great War, the French still wanted to fight line battles with rifles. The Germans were better prepared and had more (indirect) artillery and machine guns but was also far from modernized.

 

[Ruck]

And especially in eastern europe the armies were "poor", so Lancers were still an option when both sides run short on Ammo. The polish also tried a counterattack in ww2 with lancers, but at this point they had to realize, that this wont work against the Germans.

If you have in mind the Charge at Krojanty, this is unfortunately a propaganda myth which even more unfortunately survived until today. The combat between polish cavalry and german reconaissance (very light) tanks were an unplanned accident in which the polish troops were surprised after they successfully fought against german infantry

Charge at Krojanty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

or

Invasion of Poland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Normally, when polish cavalry saw combat in ww2, they were quite succesfull, equipped with anti tank rifles which could penetrate the bulk of german tanks without any problems at that time (at that time germany had only produced Panzer I, II in larger numbers and some very limited small numbers of the earlier Panzer III and IV versions). Just imagine the rage of germans who lost costly tanks against someone sitting on their horse and shooting with an oversized rifle (Well ok, they probably unmounted for the shooting xD).

It must be a terrifying picture, to be caught with your infantry platoon on open space field and suddenly 200 cavalry units are storming out of the woods towards you and your only defense is the Karabiner 98. Many german infantry divisions lacked machine guns in 39.

The germans btw used also cavalry units in combat and germans and poles fought on horseback with sabers each other at Krasnobrod:

Battle of Krasnobród (1939) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grand Historian]

As i see, the "Grand Historian" "respectfully disagrees" with my explanation what I had in mind with my original post. Seems he knows better what I had in mind than me myself

You have disagreed with every single post I have made in this thread, including the ones where I do not address you, and have continually mocked a username I already take the piss out of with the title directly below it, and then have the gall to tell me I not only need to work on my social skills, but what I am thinking when I disagree with you.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

If it changes the values and variables to a degree in which they are mostly unrecognizable from vanilla gameplay, it has effectively changed the combat system.

So if I enter variables into a formula and some days later enter some other variables into the same formula I have somehow changed the formula? Good to know, I knew my math professor was wrong!

And, once again, the devs of the Great War are making their own game about the Great War for a reason.

As far as I'm concerned that could be any other reason. Every time I played I had perfect static frontlines on the western front while having at the same time less static ones at the estern front - as it's supposed to be for a WWI game. /edit: I admit, that the last time I played must have been around WtT or maybe MtG, so maybe they screwed it up in the meanwhile.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

If you have in mind the Charge at Krojanty, this is unfortunately a propaganda myth which even more unfortunately survived until today. The combat between polish cavalry and german reconaissance (very light) tanks were an unplanned accident in which the polish troops were surprised after they successfully fought against german infantry

Charge at Krojanty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

or

Invasion of Poland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Normally, when polish cavalry saw combat in ww2, they were quite succesfull, equipped with anti tank rifles which could penetrate the bulk of german tanks without any problems at that time (at that time germany had only produced Panzer I, II in larger numbers and some very limited small numbers of the earlier Panzer III and IV versions). Just imagine the rage of germans who lost costly tanks against someone sitting on their horse and shooting with an oversized rifle (Well ok, they probably unmounted for the shooting xD).

It must be a terrifying picture, to be caught with your infantry platoon on open space field and suddenly 200 cavalry units are storming out of the woods towards you and your only defense is the Karabiner 98. Many german infantry divisions lacked machine guns in 39.

The germans btw used also cavalry units in combat and germans and poles fought on horseback with sabers each other at Krasnobrod:

Battle of Krasnobród (1939) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nah, i didnt mean the propagandamyth the italian journalists made of it. I know the Polish tried to attack infantry and not tanks. But when u read ur links u will see, that they allways received horrible losses in their charges, far higher than their comrades on foot or in tanks.

And in ur case, the battle of Krojanty, they charged with lancers the resting german infantry. And it was no "accident" that german tanks and armored cars showed up, they scouted the area before the infantry moves on. At least they made in this case a better job than the polish scouts which didnt know about them...

To surprise one enemy is a good thing, but to lose a 3rd or more of ur men with that charge doesn´t justify this maneuvre.

You must think about machineguns: Infantry can lay down on earth or duck to become smaller targets, but horses are large easy to hit targets. Thats why they reveived such horrible losses.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

You have disagreed with every single post I have made in this thread, including the ones where I do not address you, and have continually mocked a username I already take the piss out of with the title directly below it, and then have the gall to tell me I not only need to work on my social skills, but what I am thinking when I disagree with you.

Yeah its obvious you troll here for some reason only u know.

And Yeah I give a lot of feedback to the poss here, and in ur case i can´t find anything which is worth a like sorry. And when I reply to you u receive the answer you provoked. That u also dont like this is understandable but not my problem.

 

[Crazy-Krauthead]

So if I enter variables into a formula and some days later enter some other variables into the same formula I have somehow changed the formula? Good to know, I knew my math professor was wrong!

Awesome

BTW I added some Screens and Videos of the mod u showed up here to show what viccy 3 could look like

 

[Cypres]

Victoria 3?