The degree of depth to the current EU1 is great but beyond even the rather crazy monarch missions and in general weird AI bugs, the greatest problem is watching armies of three or four times the size of their opponents getting beaten badly by armies that do not even possess the same level of technology. What I would humbly suggest is that with the incredibly detailed and awesome tatctical level combat engines available like their Waterloo engine, or maybe something like a "Gettysburg" engine one could have the choice of entering into tactical level gaming. Particularly when the "crap" is hitting the fan. Finally one can blast those annoying little cavalry armies of the tartars, persians, and other barbarians with cannon fire and massed musket fire!!!! God loves those who have the technology and the armies that employ it.
-
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.
Shogun: Total War is a good example of this idea. Although, that might be too much to expect if we are looking at a December release window.
The other thing to keep in mind is that EU is real time. Other games are turn based. Tactical battles might be impossible to incorporate into the current game format.
The other thing to keep in mind is that EU is real time. Other games are turn based. Tactical battles might be impossible to incorporate into the current game format.
Last edited:
I would say, tactical battles ARE impossible to incorporate into the current game format.
And, yes it is annoying when my 3/3/2/1 leader with a 24/5/30 army gets beaten by Hanseatic army, without a leader and with low morale, of 1/5/0.
abstract tactical combat?
Perhaps something like the old board game (which is very similar to EU) Empires in Arms?
That allowed you to pick a tactical "chit" which was cross-indexed with your opponents "chit" to give you a CRT. The combat system itself was so similar it would mesh very well with EU - I wouldn't be surprised if it was based on it.
Offensive tactics were things such as "assault", "probe", "outflank"... can't remember the rest - probably a "withdraw"?
Defensive were similar.
Then the game used a virtually identical morale/casualty system with a cavalry pursiut once one side routed.
The point of all this being that you could customize your tactics to your strengths and weaknesses. Have a lot of cavalry? Outflank! Have overwhelming numbers but weak morale? Assault!
Of course different tactical options worked better or worse depending on what your opponent chose so it came down to a bit of a guessing game, but that usually only affected how badly you won or loss unless your armies were fairly equal or you were really stupid (ie probing as the Turks who had poor morale in the game)
Perhaps something like the old board game (which is very similar to EU) Empires in Arms?
That allowed you to pick a tactical "chit" which was cross-indexed with your opponents "chit" to give you a CRT. The combat system itself was so similar it would mesh very well with EU - I wouldn't be surprised if it was based on it.
Offensive tactics were things such as "assault", "probe", "outflank"... can't remember the rest - probably a "withdraw"?
Defensive were similar.
Then the game used a virtually identical morale/casualty system with a cavalry pursiut once one side routed.
The point of all this being that you could customize your tactics to your strengths and weaknesses. Have a lot of cavalry? Outflank! Have overwhelming numbers but weak morale? Assault!
Of course different tactical options worked better or worse depending on what your opponent chose so it came down to a bit of a guessing game, but that usually only affected how badly you won or loss unless your armies were fairly equal or you were really stupid (ie probing as the Turks who had poor morale in the game)
Re: abstract tactical combat?
Sniff. Sniff. You are going to make me cry, s. I loved that game Empires in Arms and you just reminded me that Frank Hunter made a computer version which was going to be released by Matrix Games, but now never will be...
Anyway. I kind of like your idea, but I think it would work better in a turn-based game than in EU. Stopping to choose a strategy for every battle would get tedious (especially because you sometimes have to fight AI armies as they come in piecemeal).
Sniff. Sniff. You are going to make me cry, s. I loved that game Empires in Arms and you just reminded me that Frank Hunter made a computer version which was going to be released by Matrix Games, but now never will be... Anyway. I kind of like your idea, but I think it would work better in a turn-based game than in EU. Stopping to choose a strategy for every battle would get tedious (especially because you sometimes have to fight AI armies as they come in piecemeal).
The Empires in Arms model is the only realistic one for EU. The Shogun model while nice only works when you have a limited time frame. In this case you would have to model armies in a 400 year time span(not to forget an incredible variation in terrain). And people complained about my 1914 idea .
Marcus
.Marcus
Originally posted by marcusjm
The Empires in Arms model is the only realistic one for EU. The Shogun model while nice only works when you have a limited time frame. In this case you would have to model armies in a 400 year time span(not to forget an incredible variation in terrain). And people complained about my 1914 idea
Marcus
People complain about the tactical battle idea as well. The Grey Eminence behind the throne is not a general, and he's not on the field of combat, so he can do damn all to influence how the battle comes out. All he tells his armies is where to go, and then prays that things go their way when they get there.
How do you know Gray Eminence already survive 401 years maybe he or she can telport.
Though i do agree with it would complicate thinks too much most likely
I just don't want any tactical battle Not my cup of tea, I like it just fine as it is. U get historic generals for a reason. It's their job.
Not my cup of tea, I like it just fine as it is. U get historic generals for a reason. It's their job.
What would happen if you put tactical combat in the game is that it would take a huge amount of time and resources to implement it, and then you'd have a barely improved EU1 with a poor tactical simulation. If this company was Blizzard, with the resources and programmers to handle both games (and they are almost two seperate games), I'd say, hey, ok, give us an option for tactical combat, and I just won't use it. But since this ISN'T Blizzard and isn't bankrolled by Sierra, their limited resources are better used honing and already outstanding historical simulation as opposed to tacking on a unsatisfactory to everyone (and it would unsatisfactory) tactical model.
And if superior forces won the day in every single battle, then why would anybody fight wars in the first place? They'd perform a detailed troop count and then tell the other country to submit. Sometimes you're going to lose to that "insignificant" force of whoever.
And if superior forces won the day in every single battle, then why would anybody fight wars in the first place? They'd perform a detailed troop count and then tell the other country to submit. Sometimes you're going to lose to that "insignificant" force of whoever.
Last edited:
During thre Seven Year's War the French court tried to 'control' what their armies were doing in detail, with the result that the French armies were frequently paralyzed by idiotic commands from the fops. A detailed tactical model allowing control from above, therefore, should horribly penalize anyone who actually tries to use it...
Please, no tactical combat!
A grand campaign game over 300 years is going to encompass thousands of battles. Tactical combats will slow down the game incredibly. It will also be extremely boring, unless its done so well like Shogun: Total war but I don't think its possible in EU's case because its just not what this game is about.
But I do agree that the current combat system is faulty. The result is TOO random. Small armies do defeat large ones occasionally, but everything else being equal large armies should have a better chance.
Here is what I think could work:
Combat will be done in several rounds, say 3-4 rounds. At the beginning of each round, each side can choose a "card". For the offensive side it can be "take the ground", "kill every last man of the opposition", "cautious", "pursuit", or things like that. For the defensive side the cards can be "hold the ground", "take as many of them down as possible", "avoid losses at all cost", "orderly withdrawal", "flee" etc. Then the computer can calculate the result based on all the factors, terrain, size of armies, morale, card chosen, leaders, tech, random factor etc. The goal is to keep it fast and simple, yet the players can exert some influence both at the strategic level (by throwing a larger army into the battle), and at the tactical level (by chooseing the cards).
Whatever you do, keep it fast and simple. And I don't want to see 500 men defeating a 100,000 men army with better technology and leaders in EU 2 again.
A grand campaign game over 300 years is going to encompass thousands of battles. Tactical combats will slow down the game incredibly. It will also be extremely boring, unless its done so well like Shogun: Total war but I don't think its possible in EU's case because its just not what this game is about.
But I do agree that the current combat system is faulty. The result is TOO random. Small armies do defeat large ones occasionally, but everything else being equal large armies should have a better chance.
Here is what I think could work:
Combat will be done in several rounds, say 3-4 rounds. At the beginning of each round, each side can choose a "card". For the offensive side it can be "take the ground", "kill every last man of the opposition", "cautious", "pursuit", or things like that. For the defensive side the cards can be "hold the ground", "take as many of them down as possible", "avoid losses at all cost", "orderly withdrawal", "flee" etc. Then the computer can calculate the result based on all the factors, terrain, size of armies, morale, card chosen, leaders, tech, random factor etc. The goal is to keep it fast and simple, yet the players can exert some influence both at the strategic level (by throwing a larger army into the battle), and at the tactical level (by chooseing the cards).
Whatever you do, keep it fast and simple. And I don't want to see 500 men defeating a 100,000 men army with better technology and leaders in EU 2 again.
This is a grand strategic game, where the shortest discernable time period is one day. There is no place for detailed tactical combat. Even as it is the battles routinely last over a week, which is silly. Historically most were over in a few hours.
I agree
Well said.
Tactical battles is a nice thought but this game is not about this. Gadly this isn't going to be implemented and Paradox are going to focus on the important social, economic and political changes of the period instead of this.
Shogun is a lovely 'toy' but its virtually nothing to do with reality, warfare or history.
However, I might point out that although the battles last days this is to reflect the marching and counter marching and skirmishs that invaribly took place. Thus its not silly its an abstract way of implementing this concept.
Well said.
Tactical battles is a nice thought but this game is not about this. Gadly this isn't going to be implemented and Paradox are going to focus on the important social, economic and political changes of the period instead of this.
Shogun is a lovely 'toy' but its virtually nothing to do with reality, warfare or history.
However, I might point out that although the battles last days this is to reflect the marching and counter marching and skirmishs that invaribly took place. Thus its not silly its an abstract way of implementing this concept.
no no no no no tactical battles. A war monger would never stand a chance beaucse the game would get too long.
How about having a choice of controlling it yourself or taking the results as now - like lords of the realm etc
Originally posted by BiB
I just don't want any tactical battle
Agree with you on this one. There's enough to micromanage in the game w/o the added distraction of tactical battles. People complain about managing merchants; try the insane number of battles that would be fought over a 401 year period! I could see a contest to see who could have the least number of battles in a campaign game.
sahir
Tactibal battle or not
Some of you don't want tactical battles. Other want it.
Simple : the system should just ask before each battle if the resolution will be automatic (same as in EU1) or tactical. It could even be possible to turn this option off for a whole game in the options, without the need to answer this question
Personnaly, I don't think a real time battle as in Shogun would be good : it would be VERY long to finish a GC game.
But a compromise between Empire in Arms, the EU board game and also the computer risk may be nice.
Simply decompose the battle in round. For each round, the general selects a tactic (outflank, charge, stand ground). Then the result will depends on the comparison between the tactics selected, the general skills, the terrain, the army composition (outflank will work better with cavalry than with infantery) etc. and will determine the losses and morale drop of each side. The battle ends when :
- One of the army is destroyed
- One of the army's morale is to low
- One of the general selects a "retreat" tactic.
It won't be really hard to implement : simply add a window with the selection of the tactics, and a few information. The most difficult part would be to model the results of the battle.
Some of you don't want tactical battles. Other want it.
Simple : the system should just ask before each battle if the resolution will be automatic (same as in EU1) or tactical. It could even be possible to turn this option off for a whole game in the options, without the need to answer this question
Personnaly, I don't think a real time battle as in Shogun would be good : it would be VERY long to finish a GC game.
But a compromise between Empire in Arms, the EU board game and also the computer risk may be nice.
Simply decompose the battle in round. For each round, the general selects a tactic (outflank, charge, stand ground). Then the result will depends on the comparison between the tactics selected, the general skills, the terrain, the army composition (outflank will work better with cavalry than with infantery) etc. and will determine the losses and morale drop of each side. The battle ends when :
- One of the army is destroyed
- One of the army's morale is to low
- One of the general selects a "retreat" tactic.
It won't be really hard to implement : simply add a window with the selection of the tactics, and a few information. The most difficult part would be to model the results of the battle.