Old but still valid in my book!

[KingCharlesXII]

So today I reached my 700th post after being a member of the forum for 13 years yaaay lol ...anyway, I was looking at my first few posts for giggles and came upon THIS (below). Although written for EUII, it is still relevant today and has me STILL asking "why" not? I have never even seen a modder attempt to do this. Just curious on your opinions. Thanks!

Originally posted on December 19, 2001:

Battlefield tactics
Shouldn't there be a tactical option before the start of each battle? It doesn't even have to be elaborate. (ie. frontal attack, left or fight flank attacks, recon in force, fighting withdrawl, etc.) Perhaps your military/ naval tech levels can determine the types of choices available to you during a battle, leader factors, etc. The possibilities I think are endless. For it will give the player(s) control over one of the most important and frequent events throughout the game- combat! example message: "Gustav II went with " left-flank attack"... "Washington went with defense position (entrenchment)"...

On top of that you can even set the tone of your units according to morale and tech while on "campaign" or while moving: (ie. forced march (lowers morale but quickens pace), scourched earth (depletes supply limit in province, etc. and damages economy), winter quarters (attrition lowered, morale increased but no movement until a specified time, etc. or how about this one: surrender. Why should a commander have to continue to send his men into the slaughter if there is nowehere else to run? Why not just surrender and become POW's? There can even be a POW exchange (which was very frequent in this age) that can even be used as a tool for peace offerings. Like I said, the possibilities are endless!

 

[Sachko]

Forced march and scorched earth are in the game, winter quarters could also be a nice idea.
But, for the tactical choices ? I prefer to put my faith in my generals. I know that my soldiers will actualy try to flank, and
all.. But I keep these ' choices ' to my generals, and their dice rolling.

But POW ? That's a good idea. Realy good idea. At least the opportunity to take prisoners.

 

[KingCharlesXII]

You know, its funny, I guess I didn't read my entire post. You are 100% right, scorched earth and forced marching are in the game now. Not back then. But now. Good catch And yes, POWs would rock!

 

[WKIII]

I would like to see some battlefield control at least if the monarch itself is the actual commanding general at the battle. (So here you get the tactical advance by risking your own monarch)

But no chance... PI loves random dice and arbitrary mechanics.

 

[frolix42]

A Paradox game with the Clausewitz engine, March of the Eagles, had a battle system similar, though not identical to, what you're describing. You might consider picking it up during the Steam Christmas sale or even just playing the demo.

But no chance... PI loves random dice and arbitrary mechanics.

I give them more credit than that. March of the Eagles is proof that Paradox tried something different. If MotE had been a hit, maybe it's battle system would've made it's way into EU4.

 

[anomanderus]

So today I reached my 700th post after being a member of the forum for 13 years yaaay lol ...anyway, I was looking at my first few posts for giggles and came upon THIS (below). Although written for EUII, it is still relevant today and has me STILL asking "why" not? I have never even seen a modder attempt to do this. Just curious on your opinions. Thanks!

Originally posted on December 19, 2001:

Battlefield tactics
Shouldn't there be a tactical option before the start of each battle? It doesn't even have to be elaborate. (ie. frontal attack, left or fight flank attacks, recon in force, fighting withdrawl, etc.) Perhaps your military/ naval tech levels can determine the types of choices available to you during a battle, leader factors, etc. The possibilities I think are endless. For it will give the player(s) control over one of the most important and frequent events throughout the game- combat! example message: "Gustav II went with " left-flank attack"... "Washington went with defense position (entrenchment)"...

On top of that you can even set the tone of your units according to morale and tech while on "campaign" or while moving: (ie. forced march (lowers morale but quickens pace), scourched earth (depletes supply limit in province, etc. and damages economy), winter quarters (attrition lowered, morale increased but no movement until a specified time, etc. or how about this one: surrender. Why should a commander have to continue to send his men into the slaughter if there is nowehere else to run? Why not just surrender and become POW's? There can even be a POW exchange (which was very frequent in this age) that can even be used as a tool for peace offerings. Like I said, the possibilities are endless!

Don't you have some funny hats to be collecting for your next public appearance?

 

[Sachko]

I would like to see some battlefield control at least if the monarch itself is the actual commanding general at the battle. (So here you get the tactical advance by risking your own monarch)

But no chance... PI loves random dice and arbitrary mechanics.

Oh yeah, this.
And your monarch would be either remembered as a pimp warrior king, Charles XII style, or die trying, taking the huge stab hit. After all, why not ?

 

[stinebot]

It would be great if you could capture generals. Imagine capturing the King or heir of the nation you are fighting? That should be a good chunk of war score right there. And maybe you could execute them if you could deal with any consequences associated with that.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

I think that if you delete an army in your own territory, it returns your manpower. Also it should only be during peacetime, for obvious reasons.

 

[MichaelM]

Originally posted on December 19, 2001:

Battlefield tactics
Shouldn't there be a tactical option before the start of each battle? It doesn't even have to be elaborate. (ie. frontal attack, left or fight flank attacks, recon in force, fighting withdrawl, etc.) Perhaps your military/ naval tech levels can determine the types of choices available to you during a battle, leader factors, etc. The possibilities I think are endless. For it will give the player(s) control over one of the most important and frequent events throughout the game- combat! example message: "Gustav II went with " left-flank attack"... "Washington went with defense position (entrenchment)"...

On top of that you can even set the tone of your units according to morale and tech while on "campaign" or while moving: (ie. forced march (lowers morale but quickens pace), scourched earth (depletes supply limit in province, etc. and damages economy), winter quarters (attrition lowered, morale increased but no movement until a specified time, etc. or how about this one: surrender. Why should a commander have to continue to send his men into the slaughter if there is nowehere else to run? Why not just surrender and become POW's? There can even be a POW exchange (which was very frequent in this age) that can even be used as a tool for peace offerings. Like I said, the possibilities are endless!

Sounds like you're describing Ultimate Risk from 1996 or 1997.

[video=youtube;DbbqE5R4MrI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbbqE5R4MrI[/video]

But it would be difficult to pick tactics constantly in a real-time game.