Hello i will try to explain here a vision of mine hoping you will find this interesting. I'm not really good in english (my native language is french) so sorry for that ^^.
To begin, Paradox do an extremelly good job with his major DLC. Reworked features became really interesting each time. Thank you paradox to try to make the best game ever.
But there is something that didn't move at all since looong time : the combat system. It's poor and rely on soldier numbers. Experienced player can try to play with terrain wich can be deadly to opposite army. They also can do some army pattern to use the best of every type of units (or they just have to read the wiki) but it doesn't change so much between a new and a veterant player and become interesting on late game when you can use many cannons.
So in my opinion there is a problem here. It's a simple combat system if we don't watch on some unknown (for most of player) mechanics with shocks and fire or the hiden (but simple) cavalry flanking charge. It can be enough if we just want to rely on the random leader stats and the luck of choose the only parameter that you can involve in to win the battle : the terrain
So good players and pure inexperienced players are pretty similar in a war. We can't easly tell "that player is good" since a bad player can bring 2x soldier and win the war.
So we maybe can go futher and really improve this system.
I take my inspiration from fiction and history. Battle rely on numbers but also on tactics and strategy. Currently we only have the right to choose the terrain (if you are lucky) and the right to spam armies, hoping you will outnumber the opponent.
In fact i have a nostalgia thought about victoria 1. In this game there was something that disapear in next games. The surrounding system. Surrounding grant bonus. IA also used that type of tactics and you could even see splited army on frontier. It was really an awesome view. In victoria 2 splited army disapeared in a big stack. And we lost flanking bonus. In that way you could never see confederate states win against USA, whereas victoria 1.
So why can't we use a flanking feature rely on map moves?? For exemple joining a battle already engaged on a side or rear or just to choose to strenghen the main army. I'm not speaking about inbattle flanking like cav, inf or any micro management, just army movement
I can see many implementations concepts.
1) There is the visual heart of iron (2?) system, with army fighting far from each other (one in a province and the other in front in another province), staying on their original province. In that system you know, visualy where come from the army where you can flank them with yours.
2) The victoria 1/EU4 visual system, graphically armies are merged in one battle, but there is still the parameter of army flanking.
If you don't see where i'm coming i will explain with an exemple :
There is the situation where the ennemy attack on side to, we can imagine a lost of the flanking bonus to not complexify the combat system.
This concept is using the current combat gameplay and just change the dice score rely on your move on the map. The player have more tactics possibility using only simpliest moves.
In that way an army with 5k have more chance to win against a 10k without having 90% chance of loosing because you made good split, and good map movement.
Using it properly can give +3 or +4 on dice score, making much more casuality or moral damage, or both (if side damage are not the same that the main army damage). And we can have some rules, for exemple a flanking army has to be at least 20% of the main army size. We can have a moral reworks (or not). The moral can rely on the main army or be devided equaly (or not) between army.
So you can't have a 1k army as main army and all troops on sides and rear to have the bonus.
Futhermore we can imagine many feature with that :
Small armies in a huge war can make the difference by flanking. There is many things we can do with a flanking gameplay. Complex and deep feature but not complicated. We can have a little improvement or a huge reword. Futhermore there is a synergy with the fort system that prevent some moves.
For player we could have many scenarii :
Maybe the opposent will may think "shit... well done i could have done better" and not anymore "You allied all player to get more soldier than me it's unfair !!" or "you have twice soldier than me i couldn't do anything !!"
To begin, Paradox do an extremelly good job with his major DLC. Reworked features became really interesting each time. Thank you paradox to try to make the best game ever.
But there is something that didn't move at all since looong time : the combat system. It's poor and rely on soldier numbers. Experienced player can try to play with terrain wich can be deadly to opposite army. They also can do some army pattern to use the best of every type of units (or they just have to read the wiki) but it doesn't change so much between a new and a veterant player and become interesting on late game when you can use many cannons.
So in my opinion there is a problem here. It's a simple combat system if we don't watch on some unknown (for most of player) mechanics with shocks and fire or the hiden (but simple) cavalry flanking charge. It can be enough if we just want to rely on the random leader stats and the luck of choose the only parameter that you can involve in to win the battle : the terrain
So good players and pure inexperienced players are pretty similar in a war. We can't easly tell "that player is good" since a bad player can bring 2x soldier and win the war.
So we maybe can go futher and really improve this system.
I take my inspiration from fiction and history. Battle rely on numbers but also on tactics and strategy. Currently we only have the right to choose the terrain (if you are lucky) and the right to spam armies, hoping you will outnumber the opponent.
In fact i have a nostalgia thought about victoria 1. In this game there was something that disapear in next games. The surrounding system. Surrounding grant bonus. IA also used that type of tactics and you could even see splited army on frontier. It was really an awesome view. In victoria 2 splited army disapeared in a big stack. And we lost flanking bonus. In that way you could never see confederate states win against USA, whereas victoria 1.
So why can't we use a flanking feature rely on map moves?? For exemple joining a battle already engaged on a side or rear or just to choose to strenghen the main army. I'm not speaking about inbattle flanking like cav, inf or any micro management, just army movement
I can see many implementations concepts.
1) There is the visual heart of iron (2?) system, with army fighting far from each other (one in a province and the other in front in another province), staying on their original province. In that system you know, visualy where come from the army where you can flank them with yours.
2) The victoria 1/EU4 visual system, graphically armies are merged in one battle, but there is still the parameter of army flanking.
If you don't see where i'm coming i will explain with an exemple :
There is 2 country at war, the first one have 2 stacks with 5k each. The second have 10k in one stack. The first country make a move and engage, with one stack. The fight visualy merge fighting armies like the current system and this is 5k soldier vs 10k, but the second stack come from the province on the left side and engage some times later. In that way it's a 10k vs 10k but you can also see a +1 on dice for the flanking move.
You can expand it with the rear. Another stack attacking on the back granting +1 or +2 on dice.
There is the situation where the ennemy attack on side to, we can imagine a lost of the flanking bonus to not complexify the combat system.
This concept is using the current combat gameplay and just change the dice score rely on your move on the map. The player have more tactics possibility using only simpliest moves.
In that way an army with 5k have more chance to win against a 10k without having 90% chance of loosing because you made good split, and good map movement.
Using it properly can give +3 or +4 on dice score, making much more casuality or moral damage, or both (if side damage are not the same that the main army damage). And we can have some rules, for exemple a flanking army has to be at least 20% of the main army size. We can have a moral reworks (or not). The moral can rely on the main army or be devided equaly (or not) between army.
So you can't have a 1k army as main army and all troops on sides and rear to have the bonus.
Futhermore we can imagine many feature with that :
- In moutains the defender can't be sided (like the thermopyles battle in 300 movie)
- New battle view can be made with sides and back represented.
- The first with only 2 back and 2 side represented. Army can occupy sides and back with the right amount of troops and 2 country fighting each other has to gain the control of the side (so country compete to have the flanking bonus). Gaining control by another fight (this sides don't grant a bonus) to control it OR if it's to complicated to develop, a control system wich give the bonus to the country wich have the most troups (in those ways 1k can't steal the bonus to a 15k flanking army).
- A battle view with sides represented to both army (so each country can be flanked at the same time) granting bonus to all battle member.
Small armies in a huge war can make the difference by flanking. There is many things we can do with a flanking gameplay. Complex and deep feature but not complicated. We can have a little improvement or a huge reword. Futhermore there is a synergy with the fort system that prevent some moves.
For player we could have many scenarii :
- Players don't flank, they are prudent and make a trench war
- Player will use the feature system when they can. Waiting behind forts while behind eated piece by piece, waiting the good moment to attack the sieged army wich is a little restricted, or just make like now and do a battle without flanking
- Player don't want/know how to use the system and play dumbly and be punished by the opposent that use it
- Player do audacious and smart move and be recompensed by brilliant victory
Maybe the opposent will may think "shit... well done i could have done better" and not anymore "You allied all player to get more soldier than me it's unfair !!" or "you have twice soldier than me i couldn't do anything !!"
Last edited:
- 7
- 1
Upvote
0
) but i like the idea of a surrounding mechanic.
