THE MILITARY SYSTEM: LAND WARFARE
INTRODUCTIONS
Okay, so if you’re a frequent reader of the Suggestions forum, you’ve maybe already seen my thread “Major Ideas #1: Bureaucracy.” If not, allow me to introduce this series. I am a fan of Paradox games in general, and while I have no intention of going into the video games industry, I also enjoy brainstorming ideas of how to improve games. Over time, I’ve elaborated on these ideas to where they could, by themselves, serve as the basis for a sequel.
I do not expect any of these ideas to be implemented, nor do I expect all of you to agree with them. The point is just to get these ideas out there, in hopes that they inspire discussion that could, in turn, influence Paradox or the modding community.
In my last thread, I shared my idea for a Bureaucracy system that would replace, to a large extent, the Monarch Points and Overextension (both of which are severe flaws of Europa Universalis). This time, I’m focusing on an aspect of the game that doesn’t strictly need reworking, but could stand to benefit from it all the same: the military.
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE?
As is, the Military System does a good job of turning out realistic results for warfare between large states. Factors like terrain, commanders, and troop composition all play a large role. Having not yet played Common Sense, I can’t really pass judgment on how Forts affect strategy.
However, the Military System still functions in a surprisingly abstract way. For example, combat between both armies and navies usually didn’t take the form of pitched battles lasting over the course of days (often weeks!), as we see in-game. In fact, that basically never happened, outside of trench warfare. Instead, what tended to happen was a series of small engagements in which armies tried to outmaneuver before having huge battles that rarely lasted more than a day.
Moreover, while realism isn’t always beneficial, in this case, there is quite an argument to be made for it. Creating a system in which warfare focuses on that would allow wars to be determined more by set-piece battles (which is great for AAR writers), add unpredictability while freeing us from the influence of RNGesus (or, rather, appeasing him in a less obnoxious way), and give smaller nations more options for how they defend their territory.
The logistics system is also woefully outdated, even in comparison to an older Paradox game (Crusader Kings II). Much of the good kind of complexity could be added by making the maintenance of supply lines (or at least clever “foraging”) an integral part of warfare, and it would help to solve the problem of overseas conquest being too easy.
Finally, let’s admit it: there just aren’t enough troop types. What’s the point in allowing players to select a unit type, if it gets applied to every single regiment? So, my proposal has a more Victoria-like system in which there are many different types, but all of them have clear purposes and improve with technology.
CAMPAIGNS AS THE BASIS OF LAND WARFARE
So, let’s get down to basics. Battles as we currently understand them: gone. Instead, when two hostile corps (or “stacks”) encounter each other in the same province, a campaign will begin. Campaigns essentially serve as the direct replacement for what used to be called “battles,” and they represent the ongoing conflict between the corps.
Furthermore, on every day a campaign takes place, one of two actions will take place: skirmish or a battle. The basic difference is that skirmishes involve only one regiment on either side, do not directly impact Victory Points (War Score), and only consist of one round (cycles of Fire and Shock). Battles, by contrast, involve many regiments, directly impact Victory Points, and consist of many rounds. In rare cases, battles can even last for multiple days.
The reason why campaigns matter is that armies have the ability to influence both the likelihood of a battle occurring, and the amount of material they can bring to bear during a battle. The key are two related concepts: Percent Chance to Battle (which represents the likelihood of the corps encountering each other in pitched battle) and Positioning (which represents the preparedness of the corps).
At any given time, a corps may be assigned to one of two combat stances: Seeking Battle or Denying Battle. When both armies are Denying Battle, Percent Chance to Battle remains quite low; neither corps wants to end the skirmishing phase, but they could, by accident, blunder across one another. When both armies are Seeking Battle, Percent Chance to Battle skyrockets, as they are actively looking for a fight.
The interesting tactics come in to play when one corps is Seeking Battle and the other is Denying Battle. Then, various factors - of which terrain, the commanding Generals’ Maneuver skills, and troop composition are the most important - determine which side gains the advantage, and by how much. Most non-terrain bonuses will remain the same regardless of a corps’ stance, but in the case of terrain, “rough” terrain will always benefit the Denying corps and harm the Seeking corps, while the reverse is true of “gentle” terrain.
As for Positioning, it is a value (comparable to Morale) which increases throughout the campaign and determines how many regiments are brought to bear (as well as what quality) when battle does occur. Positioning is increased through roughly the same factors that determine Percent Chance to Battle, and is treated as a percentage out of 100 (whereby 100 Positioning means deployment of as many regiments as can fit on the battle line).
Because of the way Positioning and Percent Chance to Battle work, small but highly-professional armies can thereby gain an advantage through delaying, and even comparably-sized armies can try to outmaneuver within a province; get to 100 Positioning (or whatever would be a satisfying level) and Seek Battle to descend upon and destroy an enemy! Alternatively, one can try to fight a war of attrition by constantly Denying Battle and cycling through different corps to grind the enemy down with skirmishes and advantageous battles.
THE MECHANICS OF BATTLE
Before I move on to the next section, several things must be clarified, including the functioning of Fire and Shock in combat and the way terrain works.
Whenever an action (Skirmish or Battle) occurs, the army that is Denying Battle has a chance to gain a terrain bonus; in particular, 10% for every level of Maneuver over the other General, -5% for every level of Maneuver under the other General, 20% for being the defender, and -10% for being the attacker; separate calculations are made for the three different terrain types (so that river, altitude, and woodedness can be present in different combinations).
In the case of actions in which both armies are Seeking or Denying, the bonus is assumed to be granted to whichever army is the defender.
Now, what do the bonuses do? Well, they contribute to your Fire or Shock values; Hills, for example, increase your Fire, Woods increase your Shock, and Rivers increase Fire. As such, Wooded Hills with a River could, at maximum, give you a bonus of 2 Fire and 1 Shock. Of course, exact values would be up to Paradox themselves, and would have to be balanced.
Fortifications, if present, are treated like a terrain bonus and grant considerable Fire and Shock bonuses.
Lastly, I mentioned rounds a long time ago. In short, Skirmishes last for only one round (one phases of Fire, one of Shock), while Battles last for five, and, if inconclusive, the Battle can last for up to three days.
MOVEMENT ON A STRATEGIC LEVEL
There is one particular problem that Paradox has never seemed to excise, and that’s the matter of doomstacks. Even in the system I’ve laid out, there would be no reason not to use doomstacks during these longer campaigns. However, there was a fellow (whose name I can’t remember) who laid out a good idea for how to break them up: flanking penalties.
Now, everything I have said up until now has focused on combat within a single province, or at the tactical/operational level. However, there are additional concerns at the strategic level, namely control of movement and flanking.
In essence, every corps has an orientation based on the direction it entered the province from, with the orientation determining which provinces the corps covers, flanks, and faces. As a rule, the covered province is always the one that it was last in, the flanked provinces are those that border the covered province, and the faced provinces are those that do not border the covered province.
For example, suppose we have a French corps that disembarks in London and then marches into Oxfordshire. Said corps would cover London, flank Essex and Wessex, and face Warwick, Norwich, Marches, Derby, and Lincoln.
When there is an ongoing campaign, none of the engaged corps may pass into a province that is covered by an opposing corps. So, suppose that Oxfordshire was defended by the British army, which had come from Derby. The French army would be unable to march directly into Derby, but it could march into any other province (and with no penalty to Victory Points; after all, victory is determined by occupations and battles, not low-level skirmishing).
So, you can see where it would be in your interest to set up “frontlines” and otherwise corral an enemy in order to prevent them from waltzing around the country. However, there is a second factor: flanking penalties. When engaging against a single corps, the defending corps will always just reorient itself to face that particular corps. Against multiple corps, however, reorientation is impossible. As a result, if a corps enters the province and covers a province that is itself covered or flanked by the defender, it will inflict a severe penalty to Positioning (one which reflects the size of the corps, so that smaller flanking parties matter less). Every additional front that must be covered also results in one more action per day.
So, suppose our British army calls in a reinforcement unit from Marches. Marches still faces Oxfordshire, so while there are now more regiments overall, there is no flanking penalty or increase in skirmishes. If the French brought in a force from Lincoln (which flanks the British force), they would inflict a flanking penalty on the British and gain one additional action per day (between the British force from Derby and the French force from Lincoln).
In this way, armies can be whittled down by smaller stacks, instead of deathstacks… and in order to prevent that, the player and AI would create broad front lines. He who breaks the front first (forces a retreat) can then use that to cripple the entire line.
SUPPLY LINES: AN ARMY MARCHES ON ITS STOMACH
I’ve always found Paradox games’ supply limit system a little baffling, as all it really does is force you to split stacks, and only for occupation and movement; no reason to not just create a doomstack for the purposes of winning a single battle.
For the most part, supply lines do seem irrelevant. However, there are two particular purposes they could serve; they could be tied into the Fort system, as well as serve as a way to limit overseas strength.
To begin, let’s suppose that, in addition to Morale and (during combat) Positioning, every corps has a Supplies level which serves as an abstraction of all the necessities of warfare. When Supplies run low, the corps begins to take penalties of increasing severity, running from simple reduced combat efficiency (at, say, 30% Supplies) to mass starvation (at 0%).
Now, I’ve got some thoughts on how weaponry and foodstuffs could be modeled in game using an economic system much like Victoria’s. However, this post is already running quite long, so for now, suppose that Supplies are generated based on your province’s development with trade goods playing a role (bonuses coming, for example, from owning Grain, Salt, Fish, Iron, and Naval Supplies).
Furthermore, there are three main ways you can keep an army in supply: Forts, Caravans, and Foraging… and, just since I haven’t addressed this yet, let me note that this idea was drafted long before Common Sense’s Fort system was announced. Personally, I do not feel that Forts should be able to restrict movement in adjacent provinces or prevent occupation of them, so that is not a factor in this proposal.
Foraging is the default method of resupplying in that it does not require more advanced military technology, does not require an investment on the part of the state, and automatically occurs. Basically, armies can (like in Crusader Kings II) damage the local economy in order to resupply. However, economic recovery is a slow process, so long campaigns or use of large armies runs a severe risk of “burning out” an area and making it treacherous to travel through. Foraging your own land can have terrible political consequences (like peasant unrest and opposition from local elites), and foraging in general will undermine your diplomatic reputation.
Alternatively, you can keep in supply using your own stock. Provinces that you control will naturally generate a smaller amount of Supplies that is automatically “shipped” to Forts that are contiguous with them by land; Forts can also ship Supplies back and forth between each other if there is a land connection. If a corps visits one of these Forts, it’s Supply will be regenerated. This is feasible for a defensive campaign in a smaller nation and is also relatively inexpensive (though Forts do have their maintenance costs), but if you wish to carry Supplies into enemy territory, you will have to besiege their Forts and create “supply lines” by occupying provinces until there is a contiguous chain.
Finally, Caravans are a new type of regiment that exists specifically to act as mobile repositories of Supplies, topping your corps off until they run dry. They are unlocked a ways into the game, roughly around 1700 (assuming a stable rate of technological development). Caravans do have a significant drawback, though, in that their Supplies naturally decay, and they must be topped off at Forts themselves (leading to possibilities like raiding an enemy’s Caravan line to cut supplies, or seize them for yourself).
While I won’t be getting into naval warfare until a later thread, Transport-type ships will play a major role in the supplying of overseas forces. Like Caravans, they can carry Supplies and will bring them from one harbor to another, allowing Forts in distant places to receive more Supplies than the provinces there could generate themselves. Shipping over massive armies would be impossible (or at least risky) without having a dedicated merchant marine.
REGIMENT TYPES
Regiments would be able to take on culturally-specific names; a French Heavy Cavalry unit might be identified as Knights, a German Heavy Infantry unit as Landshneckt, and a Japanese Light Infantry unit as Ashigaru. However, all regiments would more or less come from these eight basic types.
Light Infantry
Light Infantry represent men of the firing line, and, as such, have higher Fire at the expense of their Shock. Due to their use of mass formations, their Maneuver is wholly unremarkable, and they are competent at besieging. Light Infantry begin the game as somewhat weak and expensive units, but their cost gradually drops as their Fire increases. With the development of bayonets in the late-game, they can compete with Heavy Infantry, and with the development of the fixed bayonet, completely supersede them.
Light Infantry are, naturally best employed as a jack-of-all-trades unit that forms the backbone of any operation.
Heavy Infantry
Heavy Infantry represent men of the line and of the charge, and thus serve as a foil to the Light Infantry, having higher Shock and lower Fire. Because Shock values are much higher in the beginning of the game to begin with, they should form the basis of an early army, but eventually become outdated. They also have stronger resistance to Shock, making them not only deadly, but tough as well. Being a little bit more expensive than Light Infantry, and never becoming considerably cheaper, they are to be slowly phased out in most militaries.
Skirmishers
Skirmishers can represent anything ranging from professional rangers to weak conscripts, but what they specialize in is, as the name implies, skirmish tactics. As such, they have weaker Fire and Shock than either of the other two infantry units, but they also have a high resistance to Fire, greatly contribute to Positioning through their high Maneuver value, and have the lowest cost of any unit in terms of both recruitment and active supply.
With all these advantages, Skirmishers are best used in human waves (for countries that are gold-poor but manpower-rich), raiding of convoys, and delaying tactics. A well-disciplined Skirmisher force can, when working in tandem with stronger corps, grind more “powerful” armies to a halt. They are particularly poor at Siege, though.
Light Cavalry
Light Cavalry represents scouts and dragoons both; cavalrymen that prepare to fight from range and stay mobile. As such, they have very low Shock and Shock resistance, but their Fire is respectable, their Fire resistance phenomenal, and their Maneuver unparalleled. Siege is the worst of any unit, though. Being somewhat more expensive than Skirmishers, and much harder to supply, they are a solid choice for a nation that can afford a superior army but wishes to remain mobile.
Heavy Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry is the antithesis of Light Cavalry, and, like Heavy Infantry, is set to eventually become outdated. It has the single best Shock of any unit, but is otherwise quite expensive and has no notable advantages. Heavy Cavalry has more or less one point in the early game: crushing the enemy’s line in the first round of battle.
Light Artillery
Light Artillery is a versatile tool that becomes considerably more powerful in the late-game. Able to give supporting fire, Light Artillery has the best Fire skill, at the expense of having almost no Shock ability. It is also weaker at Siege than its Heavy counterpart, but has higher Maneuver to compensate. Light Artillery can be viewed as the foil to Heavy Cavalry, being an expensive unit that determines battles (albeit in the late game).
Heavy Artillery
Heavy Artillery has, despite the name, lower Fire than Light Artillery (since it takes longer to reload and aim) and the single lowest Maneuver. In exchange, it’s the best at Siege and has somewhat better Shock (due to better-armed crews). Heavy Artillery is most relevant near the beginning of the game, when it serves as an expensive but invaluable way to break through tough fortifications.
Caravan
Caravans have low stats in everything but Maneuver, where they are the third swiftest. Their entire purpose is to transport Supplies to the front line. Caravans can also be captured and repurposed by the enemy.
REGIMENT RECRUITMENT AND FINE DETAILS
Not only is there more variety in regiment types, but regiments can also be recruited in several ways. Within the timeframe of Europa Universalis, Europe saw the evolution of militaries from being based around conscription, to mercenaries, to professional standing armies, and (ironically) back to conscription. The current installment does simulate mercenaries, and all my proposal adds is a levy/conscription system.
At the start of the game, Skirmishers, Light Infantry, Light Cavalry, and Heavy Cavalry can be levied from the provinces in varying numbers (Heavy Cavalry is relatively sparse); much like Victoria II mobilization, the total amount depends on the productivity of your provinces, and the newly-formed corps appear at Forts. Levies are greatly limited, though, in that there are political consequences to using them, and the consequences increase considerably during the harvest season. The levy also reduces economic productivity, and the troops always have minimum-to-low Experience (the amount is tied to Army Tradition). So, while these forces can be expected to serve as the basis for most early wars, they are mostly an emergency force by the mid-game, and should not become relevant unless a major war demands them. Even if they are needed, though, political consequences increase and numbers decrease until the late game, when Revolutionary politics can motivate nations to commit to total warfare.
Mercenaries, by contrast, use a more complex system. The more warfare and destruction there is, the more mercenary companies become available in a particular region. Mercenary armies that have survived longer can be expected to have high Experience, and even new ones will generally have medium Experience (due to their recruiting of rough men). However, they are expensive, and their contract can be bought from under your nose. All kinds of Mercenaries but Artillery are available. More Experience also comes with a higher cost.
Standing armies are expensive to maintain, but their Experience can be expected to increase (as long as you don’t take huge casualties and remain at war frequently enough), their victories contribute more to national prestige, and there are no political risks in using them.
As for the “fine details,” there are several particular changes to address. One is the treatment of Manpower. As I’ll explain in a future post, I envision more of a Vicky-like system, but for now, let’s just say that your Manpower can be broken down by province of origin, religion, and culture. When creating new units, you can choose a totally random composition, but you can also choose to segregate according to any of those factors or any combination of those factors, giving your units more identity. This would most likely be handled by having the player click on a Fort (as the location where the Regiment is recruited) and then selecting, from a series of tabs, what parameters they want (i.e., Heavy Infantry, Northumberland, English, Protestant).
There’s no telling when I’ll post my next topic, but I think Major Ideas #3, if you’re interested, will be over colonization, slavery, and playing as “tribal” societies. Thank you for your time, and I hope you have found this worth reading.
INTRODUCTIONS
Okay, so if you’re a frequent reader of the Suggestions forum, you’ve maybe already seen my thread “Major Ideas #1: Bureaucracy.” If not, allow me to introduce this series. I am a fan of Paradox games in general, and while I have no intention of going into the video games industry, I also enjoy brainstorming ideas of how to improve games. Over time, I’ve elaborated on these ideas to where they could, by themselves, serve as the basis for a sequel.
I do not expect any of these ideas to be implemented, nor do I expect all of you to agree with them. The point is just to get these ideas out there, in hopes that they inspire discussion that could, in turn, influence Paradox or the modding community.
In my last thread, I shared my idea for a Bureaucracy system that would replace, to a large extent, the Monarch Points and Overextension (both of which are severe flaws of Europa Universalis). This time, I’m focusing on an aspect of the game that doesn’t strictly need reworking, but could stand to benefit from it all the same: the military.
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE?
As is, the Military System does a good job of turning out realistic results for warfare between large states. Factors like terrain, commanders, and troop composition all play a large role. Having not yet played Common Sense, I can’t really pass judgment on how Forts affect strategy.
However, the Military System still functions in a surprisingly abstract way. For example, combat between both armies and navies usually didn’t take the form of pitched battles lasting over the course of days (often weeks!), as we see in-game. In fact, that basically never happened, outside of trench warfare. Instead, what tended to happen was a series of small engagements in which armies tried to outmaneuver before having huge battles that rarely lasted more than a day.
Moreover, while realism isn’t always beneficial, in this case, there is quite an argument to be made for it. Creating a system in which warfare focuses on that would allow wars to be determined more by set-piece battles (which is great for AAR writers), add unpredictability while freeing us from the influence of RNGesus (or, rather, appeasing him in a less obnoxious way), and give smaller nations more options for how they defend their territory.
The logistics system is also woefully outdated, even in comparison to an older Paradox game (Crusader Kings II). Much of the good kind of complexity could be added by making the maintenance of supply lines (or at least clever “foraging”) an integral part of warfare, and it would help to solve the problem of overseas conquest being too easy.
Finally, let’s admit it: there just aren’t enough troop types. What’s the point in allowing players to select a unit type, if it gets applied to every single regiment? So, my proposal has a more Victoria-like system in which there are many different types, but all of them have clear purposes and improve with technology.
CAMPAIGNS AS THE BASIS OF LAND WARFARE
So, let’s get down to basics. Battles as we currently understand them: gone. Instead, when two hostile corps (or “stacks”) encounter each other in the same province, a campaign will begin. Campaigns essentially serve as the direct replacement for what used to be called “battles,” and they represent the ongoing conflict between the corps.
Furthermore, on every day a campaign takes place, one of two actions will take place: skirmish or a battle. The basic difference is that skirmishes involve only one regiment on either side, do not directly impact Victory Points (War Score), and only consist of one round (cycles of Fire and Shock). Battles, by contrast, involve many regiments, directly impact Victory Points, and consist of many rounds. In rare cases, battles can even last for multiple days.
The reason why campaigns matter is that armies have the ability to influence both the likelihood of a battle occurring, and the amount of material they can bring to bear during a battle. The key are two related concepts: Percent Chance to Battle (which represents the likelihood of the corps encountering each other in pitched battle) and Positioning (which represents the preparedness of the corps).
At any given time, a corps may be assigned to one of two combat stances: Seeking Battle or Denying Battle. When both armies are Denying Battle, Percent Chance to Battle remains quite low; neither corps wants to end the skirmishing phase, but they could, by accident, blunder across one another. When both armies are Seeking Battle, Percent Chance to Battle skyrockets, as they are actively looking for a fight.
The interesting tactics come in to play when one corps is Seeking Battle and the other is Denying Battle. Then, various factors - of which terrain, the commanding Generals’ Maneuver skills, and troop composition are the most important - determine which side gains the advantage, and by how much. Most non-terrain bonuses will remain the same regardless of a corps’ stance, but in the case of terrain, “rough” terrain will always benefit the Denying corps and harm the Seeking corps, while the reverse is true of “gentle” terrain.
As for Positioning, it is a value (comparable to Morale) which increases throughout the campaign and determines how many regiments are brought to bear (as well as what quality) when battle does occur. Positioning is increased through roughly the same factors that determine Percent Chance to Battle, and is treated as a percentage out of 100 (whereby 100 Positioning means deployment of as many regiments as can fit on the battle line).
Because of the way Positioning and Percent Chance to Battle work, small but highly-professional armies can thereby gain an advantage through delaying, and even comparably-sized armies can try to outmaneuver within a province; get to 100 Positioning (or whatever would be a satisfying level) and Seek Battle to descend upon and destroy an enemy! Alternatively, one can try to fight a war of attrition by constantly Denying Battle and cycling through different corps to grind the enemy down with skirmishes and advantageous battles.
THE MECHANICS OF BATTLE
Before I move on to the next section, several things must be clarified, including the functioning of Fire and Shock in combat and the way terrain works.
Whenever an action (Skirmish or Battle) occurs, the army that is Denying Battle has a chance to gain a terrain bonus; in particular, 10% for every level of Maneuver over the other General, -5% for every level of Maneuver under the other General, 20% for being the defender, and -10% for being the attacker; separate calculations are made for the three different terrain types (so that river, altitude, and woodedness can be present in different combinations).
In the case of actions in which both armies are Seeking or Denying, the bonus is assumed to be granted to whichever army is the defender.
Now, what do the bonuses do? Well, they contribute to your Fire or Shock values; Hills, for example, increase your Fire, Woods increase your Shock, and Rivers increase Fire. As such, Wooded Hills with a River could, at maximum, give you a bonus of 2 Fire and 1 Shock. Of course, exact values would be up to Paradox themselves, and would have to be balanced.
Fortifications, if present, are treated like a terrain bonus and grant considerable Fire and Shock bonuses.
Lastly, I mentioned rounds a long time ago. In short, Skirmishes last for only one round (one phases of Fire, one of Shock), while Battles last for five, and, if inconclusive, the Battle can last for up to three days.
MOVEMENT ON A STRATEGIC LEVEL
There is one particular problem that Paradox has never seemed to excise, and that’s the matter of doomstacks. Even in the system I’ve laid out, there would be no reason not to use doomstacks during these longer campaigns. However, there was a fellow (whose name I can’t remember) who laid out a good idea for how to break them up: flanking penalties.
Now, everything I have said up until now has focused on combat within a single province, or at the tactical/operational level. However, there are additional concerns at the strategic level, namely control of movement and flanking.
In essence, every corps has an orientation based on the direction it entered the province from, with the orientation determining which provinces the corps covers, flanks, and faces. As a rule, the covered province is always the one that it was last in, the flanked provinces are those that border the covered province, and the faced provinces are those that do not border the covered province.
For example, suppose we have a French corps that disembarks in London and then marches into Oxfordshire. Said corps would cover London, flank Essex and Wessex, and face Warwick, Norwich, Marches, Derby, and Lincoln.
When there is an ongoing campaign, none of the engaged corps may pass into a province that is covered by an opposing corps. So, suppose that Oxfordshire was defended by the British army, which had come from Derby. The French army would be unable to march directly into Derby, but it could march into any other province (and with no penalty to Victory Points; after all, victory is determined by occupations and battles, not low-level skirmishing).
So, you can see where it would be in your interest to set up “frontlines” and otherwise corral an enemy in order to prevent them from waltzing around the country. However, there is a second factor: flanking penalties. When engaging against a single corps, the defending corps will always just reorient itself to face that particular corps. Against multiple corps, however, reorientation is impossible. As a result, if a corps enters the province and covers a province that is itself covered or flanked by the defender, it will inflict a severe penalty to Positioning (one which reflects the size of the corps, so that smaller flanking parties matter less). Every additional front that must be covered also results in one more action per day.
So, suppose our British army calls in a reinforcement unit from Marches. Marches still faces Oxfordshire, so while there are now more regiments overall, there is no flanking penalty or increase in skirmishes. If the French brought in a force from Lincoln (which flanks the British force), they would inflict a flanking penalty on the British and gain one additional action per day (between the British force from Derby and the French force from Lincoln).
In this way, armies can be whittled down by smaller stacks, instead of deathstacks… and in order to prevent that, the player and AI would create broad front lines. He who breaks the front first (forces a retreat) can then use that to cripple the entire line.
SUPPLY LINES: AN ARMY MARCHES ON ITS STOMACH
I’ve always found Paradox games’ supply limit system a little baffling, as all it really does is force you to split stacks, and only for occupation and movement; no reason to not just create a doomstack for the purposes of winning a single battle.
For the most part, supply lines do seem irrelevant. However, there are two particular purposes they could serve; they could be tied into the Fort system, as well as serve as a way to limit overseas strength.
To begin, let’s suppose that, in addition to Morale and (during combat) Positioning, every corps has a Supplies level which serves as an abstraction of all the necessities of warfare. When Supplies run low, the corps begins to take penalties of increasing severity, running from simple reduced combat efficiency (at, say, 30% Supplies) to mass starvation (at 0%).
Now, I’ve got some thoughts on how weaponry and foodstuffs could be modeled in game using an economic system much like Victoria’s. However, this post is already running quite long, so for now, suppose that Supplies are generated based on your province’s development with trade goods playing a role (bonuses coming, for example, from owning Grain, Salt, Fish, Iron, and Naval Supplies).
Furthermore, there are three main ways you can keep an army in supply: Forts, Caravans, and Foraging… and, just since I haven’t addressed this yet, let me note that this idea was drafted long before Common Sense’s Fort system was announced. Personally, I do not feel that Forts should be able to restrict movement in adjacent provinces or prevent occupation of them, so that is not a factor in this proposal.
Foraging is the default method of resupplying in that it does not require more advanced military technology, does not require an investment on the part of the state, and automatically occurs. Basically, armies can (like in Crusader Kings II) damage the local economy in order to resupply. However, economic recovery is a slow process, so long campaigns or use of large armies runs a severe risk of “burning out” an area and making it treacherous to travel through. Foraging your own land can have terrible political consequences (like peasant unrest and opposition from local elites), and foraging in general will undermine your diplomatic reputation.
Alternatively, you can keep in supply using your own stock. Provinces that you control will naturally generate a smaller amount of Supplies that is automatically “shipped” to Forts that are contiguous with them by land; Forts can also ship Supplies back and forth between each other if there is a land connection. If a corps visits one of these Forts, it’s Supply will be regenerated. This is feasible for a defensive campaign in a smaller nation and is also relatively inexpensive (though Forts do have their maintenance costs), but if you wish to carry Supplies into enemy territory, you will have to besiege their Forts and create “supply lines” by occupying provinces until there is a contiguous chain.
Finally, Caravans are a new type of regiment that exists specifically to act as mobile repositories of Supplies, topping your corps off until they run dry. They are unlocked a ways into the game, roughly around 1700 (assuming a stable rate of technological development). Caravans do have a significant drawback, though, in that their Supplies naturally decay, and they must be topped off at Forts themselves (leading to possibilities like raiding an enemy’s Caravan line to cut supplies, or seize them for yourself).
While I won’t be getting into naval warfare until a later thread, Transport-type ships will play a major role in the supplying of overseas forces. Like Caravans, they can carry Supplies and will bring them from one harbor to another, allowing Forts in distant places to receive more Supplies than the provinces there could generate themselves. Shipping over massive armies would be impossible (or at least risky) without having a dedicated merchant marine.
REGIMENT TYPES
Regiments would be able to take on culturally-specific names; a French Heavy Cavalry unit might be identified as Knights, a German Heavy Infantry unit as Landshneckt, and a Japanese Light Infantry unit as Ashigaru. However, all regiments would more or less come from these eight basic types.
Light Infantry
Light Infantry represent men of the firing line, and, as such, have higher Fire at the expense of their Shock. Due to their use of mass formations, their Maneuver is wholly unremarkable, and they are competent at besieging. Light Infantry begin the game as somewhat weak and expensive units, but their cost gradually drops as their Fire increases. With the development of bayonets in the late-game, they can compete with Heavy Infantry, and with the development of the fixed bayonet, completely supersede them.
Light Infantry are, naturally best employed as a jack-of-all-trades unit that forms the backbone of any operation.
Heavy Infantry
Heavy Infantry represent men of the line and of the charge, and thus serve as a foil to the Light Infantry, having higher Shock and lower Fire. Because Shock values are much higher in the beginning of the game to begin with, they should form the basis of an early army, but eventually become outdated. They also have stronger resistance to Shock, making them not only deadly, but tough as well. Being a little bit more expensive than Light Infantry, and never becoming considerably cheaper, they are to be slowly phased out in most militaries.
Skirmishers
Skirmishers can represent anything ranging from professional rangers to weak conscripts, but what they specialize in is, as the name implies, skirmish tactics. As such, they have weaker Fire and Shock than either of the other two infantry units, but they also have a high resistance to Fire, greatly contribute to Positioning through their high Maneuver value, and have the lowest cost of any unit in terms of both recruitment and active supply.
With all these advantages, Skirmishers are best used in human waves (for countries that are gold-poor but manpower-rich), raiding of convoys, and delaying tactics. A well-disciplined Skirmisher force can, when working in tandem with stronger corps, grind more “powerful” armies to a halt. They are particularly poor at Siege, though.
Light Cavalry
Light Cavalry represents scouts and dragoons both; cavalrymen that prepare to fight from range and stay mobile. As such, they have very low Shock and Shock resistance, but their Fire is respectable, their Fire resistance phenomenal, and their Maneuver unparalleled. Siege is the worst of any unit, though. Being somewhat more expensive than Skirmishers, and much harder to supply, they are a solid choice for a nation that can afford a superior army but wishes to remain mobile.
Heavy Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry is the antithesis of Light Cavalry, and, like Heavy Infantry, is set to eventually become outdated. It has the single best Shock of any unit, but is otherwise quite expensive and has no notable advantages. Heavy Cavalry has more or less one point in the early game: crushing the enemy’s line in the first round of battle.
Light Artillery
Light Artillery is a versatile tool that becomes considerably more powerful in the late-game. Able to give supporting fire, Light Artillery has the best Fire skill, at the expense of having almost no Shock ability. It is also weaker at Siege than its Heavy counterpart, but has higher Maneuver to compensate. Light Artillery can be viewed as the foil to Heavy Cavalry, being an expensive unit that determines battles (albeit in the late game).
Heavy Artillery
Heavy Artillery has, despite the name, lower Fire than Light Artillery (since it takes longer to reload and aim) and the single lowest Maneuver. In exchange, it’s the best at Siege and has somewhat better Shock (due to better-armed crews). Heavy Artillery is most relevant near the beginning of the game, when it serves as an expensive but invaluable way to break through tough fortifications.
Caravan
Caravans have low stats in everything but Maneuver, where they are the third swiftest. Their entire purpose is to transport Supplies to the front line. Caravans can also be captured and repurposed by the enemy.
REGIMENT RECRUITMENT AND FINE DETAILS
Not only is there more variety in regiment types, but regiments can also be recruited in several ways. Within the timeframe of Europa Universalis, Europe saw the evolution of militaries from being based around conscription, to mercenaries, to professional standing armies, and (ironically) back to conscription. The current installment does simulate mercenaries, and all my proposal adds is a levy/conscription system.
At the start of the game, Skirmishers, Light Infantry, Light Cavalry, and Heavy Cavalry can be levied from the provinces in varying numbers (Heavy Cavalry is relatively sparse); much like Victoria II mobilization, the total amount depends on the productivity of your provinces, and the newly-formed corps appear at Forts. Levies are greatly limited, though, in that there are political consequences to using them, and the consequences increase considerably during the harvest season. The levy also reduces economic productivity, and the troops always have minimum-to-low Experience (the amount is tied to Army Tradition). So, while these forces can be expected to serve as the basis for most early wars, they are mostly an emergency force by the mid-game, and should not become relevant unless a major war demands them. Even if they are needed, though, political consequences increase and numbers decrease until the late game, when Revolutionary politics can motivate nations to commit to total warfare.
Mercenaries, by contrast, use a more complex system. The more warfare and destruction there is, the more mercenary companies become available in a particular region. Mercenary armies that have survived longer can be expected to have high Experience, and even new ones will generally have medium Experience (due to their recruiting of rough men). However, they are expensive, and their contract can be bought from under your nose. All kinds of Mercenaries but Artillery are available. More Experience also comes with a higher cost.
Standing armies are expensive to maintain, but their Experience can be expected to increase (as long as you don’t take huge casualties and remain at war frequently enough), their victories contribute more to national prestige, and there are no political risks in using them.
As for the “fine details,” there are several particular changes to address. One is the treatment of Manpower. As I’ll explain in a future post, I envision more of a Vicky-like system, but for now, let’s just say that your Manpower can be broken down by province of origin, religion, and culture. When creating new units, you can choose a totally random composition, but you can also choose to segregate according to any of those factors or any combination of those factors, giving your units more identity. This would most likely be handled by having the player click on a Fort (as the location where the Regiment is recruited) and then selecting, from a series of tabs, what parameters they want (i.e., Heavy Infantry, Northumberland, English, Protestant).
There’s no telling when I’ll post my next topic, but I think Major Ideas #3, if you’re interested, will be over colonization, slavery, and playing as “tribal” societies. Thank you for your time, and I hope you have found this worth reading.
- 6
Upvote
0
