[Megathread] Warfare Discussion

[DreadGrunt]

Yes, exactly actually. The 19th century is known for the advancement of technology going straight up against the traditional strategy of war. Just look at the American Civil War, which was one of the first real showcases that "modern" weapons would have on the travesty of war when Generals had not adapted to the new technology and used outdated strategies. Americans did "drop dead like flies" in the war. You mention WW1, which is another prime example of technology surpassing current strategic thought.

Also, you must remember that casualties (dead and wounded) are not strictly based on deaths in battle but also attrition via disease, weather, lack of supplies, etc. There's a reason that Qing and Russia, historically, lost outlandish numbers that had nothing to do with kills in a specific battle or arena. As someone else said, these numbers might be slightly inflated in-game, but it's not ridiculous by any means.

Britain losing almost 700,000 men in the 1840s and just being fine and able to keep pouring more into China (what just happened in a Qing game I ended up rage quitting) is utterly and completely ridiculous. That's genuinely almost 100 times more than they lost in the American Revolution.

 

[amalric de g.]

I wouldn't trust Arch as a source on... Well anything, really. He's the stereotypical "anti-sjw, liberal leftists ruining muh game!!!!" Guy who goes for any controversy he can find. Clickbait of the worst kind.

If he says the sky is blue I assume it must've turned pink.

So talking about the obvious stuff, that all can see, is in your eyes anti everything and clickbait of the worst kind?

PDX made a meme game, you only have to look what content is on youtube about the game. I watched hours of the gameplay and i´m really disapointed in witch direction PDX developed the game.

 

[Rhel]

So talking about the obvious stuff, that all can see, is in your eyes anti everything and clickbait of the worst kind?

PDX made a meme game, you only have to look what content is on youtube about the game. I watched hours of the gameplay and i´m really disapointed in witch direction PDX developed the game.

Cool subjective opinion.

 

[Deliberus]

Yes, exactly actually. The 19th century is known for the advancement of technology going straight up against the traditional strategy of war. Just look at the American Civil War, which was one of the first real showcases that "modern" weapons would have on the travesty of war when Generals had not adapted to the new technology and used outdated strategies.

I'm sorry but, several European countries already knew how to fight with many of these "modern" systems. Several military advisors and observers had arrived in America to witness what else was evolving...only to become bewildered and laugh at the American's incompetence of sending troops against one another with little rhyme or reason for doing so that caused those massive casualties.

As for military tactics? Excluding military fortifications, tactics and strategies remained the same. The movement of troops in massive lines when advancing and suppressive artillery targeting enemy troops still remained the same.

If anything, just look at the various wars in Europe from the same time period that show more competent militaries going toe to toe with each other and suffering far fewer losses as a result.

The first time this Napoleonic era of warfare was seriously challenged was during the Russo-Japanese war where trench warfare caused unspeakable casualties for the Japanese

 

[amalric de g.]

Cool subjective opinion.

Guess what, all opinions are subjective. What you have to learn is that you respect the opinions of others. But such guys as you can´t do that, because you are allways right and the others are wrong.

If someone posts that he likes the game, good for him. I would nether post such shit as you posted about the opinion of another person.

 

[Antonius66]

Seems like the direction PDX has been taking now for a long while....less grand "grand" strategy, simplified systems instead of the complex, massive often micro level granular controls they were known for back in the day, half baked ideas and games that always seem to be "sell it for cash now, fix it/refine it/make it work later....at the cost of more DLC and $". Honestly I more and more feel like the PDX I loved many years ago is gone and what remains is increasingly less differentiated from other studios making mediocre, half finished, mass market crap. I remember when PDX was an indie studio...but that is the way of things with all good studios...Bethesda, Bioware, CDProjekt Red (not quite yet but pretty much) etc....do great, get bigger or bought by a massive other conglomerate and amalgamate into the masses of subpar product shovelers. It is pretty clear warfare is not working properly in this game and it begs the question YET AGAIN that seems to KEEP COMING UP...how much testing went into this? At some point you really should have to stop asking the same question. Who played these systems in depth because they obviously are not fully functional.

Almost did not pre-order because I knew better, did it anyway...and now this will sit like the last 2 major PDX releases I pre-ordered...I:R and CK3...play them once, toss them aside and never play again or maybe wait until more content and refinement is sold to me to make the original product as good as it should have been to start. Regardless, no more pre-orders for me any more...which means if I buy stuff in the future, it will be seriously discounted after it has been out long enough to actually see if it is in a functional, fleshed out, quality state. Just like I:R, which traded on the nostalgia of Rome fans for a quick buck and was then tossed aside, Vic 3 definitely had a rabid fan base that was a guaranteed day 1 cash flow, finished or not, well balanced and functional or not. Whatever. The $42 I paid or whatever won't kill me and I finally learned my lesson and in the grand scheme of things, $42 isn't all that costly to learn a valuable lesson once and for all.

 

[Revolution 11]

I'm sorry but, several European countries already knew how to fight with many of these "modern" systems. Several military advisors and observers had arrived in America to witness what else was evolving...only to become bewildered and laugh at the American's incompetence of sending troops against one another with little rhyme or reason for doing so that caused those massive casualties.

As for military tactics? Excluding military fortifications, tactics and strategies remained the same. The movement of troops in massive lines when advancing and suppressive artillery targeting enemy troops still remained the same.

If anything, just look at the various wars in Europe from the same time period that show more competent militaries going toe to toe with each other and suffering far fewer losses as a result.

The first time this Napoleonic era of warfare was seriously challenged was during the Russo-Japanese war where trench warfare caused unspeakable casualties for the Japanese

One theory I have had for the early appearance of trench warfare during the American Civil War is that the Americans never adopted the idea of a "general staff" as the Europeans did during the same time period. As a result, the command and control capabilities of the army were quite poor. Grinding trench warfare of the type seen in WWI could have happened in the late stages of the ACW as a result of the lack of offensive coordination and cohesion during attacks.

If the French or German armies during the Battle of the Somme were given American Civil War weaponry like muskets and trained for the normal amount of time as the Civil War armies and told to attack Civil War defensive trench lines in 1864, those lines would have snapped instantly. The difference is all in the cohesion and communication and planning and command abilities of the different eras of armies.

 

[Deliberus]

One theory I have had for the early appearance of trench warfare during the American Civil War is that the Americans never adopted the idea of a "general staff" as the Europeans did during the same time period. As a result, the command and control capabilities of the army were quite poor. Grinding trench warfare of the type seen in WWI could have happened in the late stages of the ACW as a result of the lack of offensive coordination and cohesion during attacks.

If the French or German armies during the Battle of the Somme were given American Civil War weaponry like muskets and trained for the normal amount of time as the Civil War armies and told to attack Civil War defensive trench lines in 1864, those lines would have snapped instantly. The difference is all in the cohesion and communication and planning and command abilities of the different eras of armies.

And none of which are represented in the current game unfortunately.

Oh well

 

[Revolution 11]

The $42 I paid or whatever won't kill me and I finally learned my lesson and in the grand scheme of things, $42 isn't all that costly to learn a valuable lesson once and for all.

I say better late than never that you learned the lesson. Never preorder games as the wise late TotalBiscuit said in 2013. No seriously, watch his 2013 video on game preorders. It's like buying a car before you even know if it drives or not.

 

[Alsadius]

The numbers only show how many soldiers are on both sides. As for tech advantage? Well I'm not sure how much more of a tech advantage one can have when inflicting those sort of casualties

The pin on the map shows the total strength ratio - it's a red 25, meaning that the enemy is 25% stronger than you overall. I think you can also see that in text format if you click on the front.

And you don't need a tech advantage to rack up lopsided K/D ratios. The Germans had a relatively small tech advantage over the Russians in WW1 (their advantages were mostly logistical and organizational, not technology), and were arguably behind the Brits and French. But they got positive K/D on the Western Front, and mostly won thumping huge victories on the Eastern. And this is true throughout history - Hannibal had no meaningful tech advantage over the Romans, but still annihilated them at Cannae.

At this time, the Chinese army is probably suffering huge penalties from opium addiction, along with a small tech disadvantage, and maybe worse generals/terrain/luck. And they have a much larger army, which will always crank their attritional losses through the roof. It's not a surprise that you're getting a great K/D, but your troops aren't that much stronger individually. You probably just have a couple key techs more than them. But combined with the other parts, that can be enough.

Overall, I think you have a mental model for what history is supposed to look like, and actual history doesn't match that model very well. The game seems pretty accurate to me, it's just accurate in ways that are not what people would expect if they're getting any significant share of their historical ideas from pop culture. The real thing is always more complex, and sometimes contains real surprises.

 

[Antonius66]

I say better late than never that you learned the lesson. Never preorder games as the wise late TotalBiscuit said in 2013. No seriously, watch his 2013 video on game preorders. It's like buying a car before you even know if it drives or not.

Yeah the mistake was pre-ordering my Jaguar on the memories of what Jaguar used to be...here PDX games being Jaguar automobiles.

 

[Deliberus]

Hannibal had no meaningful tech advantage over the Romans, but still annihilated them at Cannae.

Numidian cavalry would like a word with you

As for why I'm receiving so little causalities and the Chinese are being stomped? Well it's because the broken warfare system will cycle armies (what seems to be) based on RNG.

In other words, the Chinese have amassed tonnes of small division groups that are more than likely matched up a against my massive stacks from Russia and Dnieper HQ.

Look I get it, you like the game but, admit that this system is god awful and look for a way to improve it instead of making excuses

 

[Alsadius]

Numidian cavalry would like a word with you

As for why I'm receiving so little causalities and the Chinese are being stomped? Well it's because the broken warfare system will cycle armies (what seems to be) based on RNG.

In other words, the Chinese have amassed tonnes of small division groups that are more than likely matched up a against my massive stacks from Russia and Dnieper HQ.

Look I get it, you like the game but, admit that this system is god awful and look for a way to improve it instead of making excuses

But that's not a tech advantage. Rome had horses, and even had some amount of cavalry - indeed, there was an entire Roman social class known as the "equestrians", so named because they were the ones rich enough to set themselves up as horsemen. There just weren't as many, but that's more of a cultural/economic difference.

And again, look at the breakdown of battle vs attrition deaths. I'd wager the lion's share of that difference is attrition.

More broadly, I don't think the combat system is perfect. The exploding number of fronts when you fight anywhere with borders (India, Germany, etc.), the fact that small stacks seem to be really penalized, and the relatively small number of choices (I'd at least like an option for troops to rest in place, for example) are all issues I've got. But it's a Paradox game that came out three days ago. It will improve over time, and it'll improve a lot. If I wasn't okay with the bumpiness of early gameplay, I'd have waited six months or a year to buy it.

 

[Mithkabob]

The war exhaustion is a pretty good start, but definitely needs tweaked.
Like I don't think the defender war support should start going down when someone on the other side of the world declares war on you and you have some unhappy pops so you go from 100->0 in a year without ever even seeing an enemy soldier.
And then they take 1 province in your capitol state with a naval invasion after 5 failed attempts and that somehow counts for 100% of their war goal and suddenly you're losing 2 a week on top of what you were already losing before.

Oh and FYI, the wounded/deaths on that screen include attrition, as Qing I think like 80-90% of my casualties in any war are attrition and that is using only the standing army, since the conscripts are also raised, I bet it's like 95%+ in that picture.

 

[KaiserArg]

How many people do you think died from battles in WW1?

A global industrial total war between the most advanced powers in the world using everything from horses to weapons of mass destruction killed 8 million soldiers in 4 years of battles. OP in a 1v1 in 1845 with Napoleonic armies inflicted 1.9 million casualties in 1 year to the Chinese. Pathetic excuse of an historical simulator.

Edit: and the worst part is that he is about to capitulate automatically due to in-game mechanics lmao, in real life the entire Qing state would have been ousted if they had lost that many soldiers in so little time fighting over freaking outer Manchuria.

 

[Revolution 11]

Yeah the mistake was pre-ordering my Jaguar on the memories of what Jaguar used to be...here PDX games being Jaguar automobiles.

Bah, branding is for the easily fooled. I never trust branding, give me a rock solid legally admissible spec sheet as well as post-release pics and videos or it doesn't exist.

We are living in a proto-cyberpunk reality, the corporations are not your friends. Well, they never have been but it is only getting more intense.

 

[wingren013]

I think the game needs a way for the losing side (in terms of War Support) to keep pushing the war, with relevant domestic consequences in terms of unrest.

The Russians were winning the Russo-Japanese war, but bowed out because public perception saw them as losing and the stakes were not high enough for them to keep fighting a deeply unpopular war.

The same Russians then made the decision to keep fighting WW1 because the stakes were high, and then got couped and eventually had a civil war.

There also needs to be some sort of War Exhaustion mechanic the goes up you as take casualties, with later social techs reducing the rate it goes up (allowing increasingly large scale industrial wars)

 

[klopkr]

It's just crazy to me that HoI4 has a perfectly good system, and if you hated micro they could just make frontline automation mandatory and yet they threw it away for this.

This is a recurring issue with great mechanics with years of work on them abandoned in other games.

 

[Alsadius]

A global industrial total war between the most advanced powers in the world using everything from horses to weapons of mass destruction killed 8 million soldiers in 4 years of battles. OP in a 1v1 in 1845 with Napoleonic armies inflicted 1.9 million casualties in 1 year to the Chinese. Pathetic excuse of an historical simulator.

Edit: and the worst part is that he is about to capitulate automatically due to in-game mechanics lmao, in real life the entire Qing state would have been ousted if they had lost that many soldiers in so little time fighting over freaking outer Manchuria.

The combined population for all of those nations in 1914 was not much bigger than China in 1844, and much of that population was colonial (i.e., not heavily invested in the war). In terms of actual combatants that the nation can muster, Qing China in 1840 probably had more raw manpower available than all the WW1 combatants combined (well, excluding the brief period of 1917 where both Russia and America were in the fight).

And most of those casualties were attrition. Attrition and disease doesn't take a lot of technical know-how. The actual deaths in battle were probably more like a quarter of that, tops. (Probably less.)

For example, here's an active war in my current game (1865). Looks pretty nasty, right? About 350k casualties, and the war hasn't even gone on long enough to get either side close to zero exhaustion. But the casualties from battle were 39k for the US (9k dead, 30k wounded) and 26k for the Brits (5k dead, 21k wounded). The other 285k or so were attrition casualties. And this is a war fought at a significantly higher tech level than OP's.

Also, we do not have to guess at the kind of casualties that historical Chinese warfare could produce. They didn't have many land wars against peer competitors other than civil wars, but even the ones they did have could produce shocking death tolls. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ngọc_Hồi-Đống_Đa was a single battle in 1789 that had 40-50k Chinese deaths, and the response from the Chinese side was to just keep fighting (until the emperor removed the general in charge, and the replacement general wanted to extract concessions rather than keep fighting.) And that was in an offensive war, not a defensive one - people always fight much harder on the defense.

 

[Mr.Chappy]

I’ve said this in another thread but it fits here too.

If you watch videos on YouTube about what people wanted from a Victoria III, which people made before even the announcement, you’d see almost every video basically says a simplified HOI4 system when it comes to war.

All they had to do was simplify an already existing system.