Pease provide us with a "no retreat to hostile territory" game option

[DesertSnow]

Hello everyone

After watching the live-demo, I look forward to AHD. However, I believe that an army shouldn't have the option of retreating to enemy territory. I know that hunting down armies that retreat towards the heart of your empire is a standard feature of most paradox games (with the exception of the HoI series). I also know that you can avoid this by stationing 1-division armies in the neighbouring provinces (at least that was the case with victoria 2 before the expansion). Unfortunately, the AI doesn't do it. I would be grateful if the developers made (at least some of) the retreat-variables modable, in a future patch or even in a future expansion.

Thanks for reading this,
D.

 

[Darkrenown]

It's not really something we can make modable, I'm afraid. Besides, if we made retreat into hostile territory impossible Xenophon's ghost would haunt us for all time

 

[RabbitMan]

You seriously couldn't mod it in? Units must only be able to move into certain regions that have a variable that qualifies it as being NOT water right? You can't retreat into water unless transports are there. Is there no way you could turn enemy territory into 'water' for movement purposes during retreats?

 

[Syntax Error]

I'm more annoyed with military access with supposedly "neutral" countries during war. I love how enemy armies retreat into neutral Switzerland during a war with France as Prussia, and I can't totally encircle enemy armies because they won't let me into their country. It could be more realistic perhaps that if countries provide military access to a country you're at war with, maybe a CB is gained. There were also issues and concerns during the Franco-Prussian War of French units retreating into neutral Belgium or Switzerland, and their troops were interned for the duration of the war as a result. Maybe this could be modeled into Victoria 2 game terms, that players could choose to violate borders and voluntary choose to have their men interned for the duration of the war, as that's certainly preferable to destruction by the enemy?

 

[Orinsul]

I'm more annoyed with military access with supposedly "neutral" countries during war. I love how enemy armies retreat into neutral Switzerland during a war with France as Prussia, and I can't totally encircle enemy armies because they won't let me into their country. It could be more realistic perhaps that if countries provide military access to a country you're at war with, maybe a CB is gained. There were also issues and concerns during the Franco-Prussian War of French units retreating into neutral Belgium or Switzerland, and their troops were interned for the duration of the war as a result. Maybe this could be modeled into Victoria 2 game terms, that players could choose to violate borders and voluntary choose to have their men interned for the duration of the war, as that's certainly preferable to destruction by the enemy?

Maybe just allow you to during a war enter any country's borders but if you dont have military access then every day your troops are there relations sour by ten points or something, so if your enemy hides in another country you can chase them down. And maybe being involved in battles in their provinces would give them a reparations CB or put them instantly in alittle bit of debt to you something.

 

[Arathian]

I'm more annoyed with military access with supposedly "neutral" countries during war. I love how enemy armies retreat into neutral Switzerland during a war with France as Prussia, and I can't totally encircle enemy armies because they won't let me into their country. It could be more realistic perhaps that if countries provide military access to a country you're at war with, maybe a CB is gained. There were also issues and concerns during the Franco-Prussian War of French units retreating into neutral Belgium or Switzerland, and their troops were interned for the duration of the war as a result. Maybe this could be modeled into Victoria 2 game terms, that players could choose to violate borders and voluntary choose to have their men interned for the duration of the war, as that's certainly preferable to destruction by the enemy?

this is a good idea. After all, wars over "millitary access" HAVE been started (see: Cambodia)

 

[unmerged(160565)]

I would like an option for when enemies have access to a neutral nation and try and use it to encircle you or get past defenses, that allows you to forcibly enter the neutral nation, not attacking, but just without permission. It would give the neutral nation a CB basically just giving you a chance to get access without going to war for it.

 

[Syntax Error]

The Germans essentially violated Belgian neutrality during the opening stages of WW1 because they knew to attack the French headlong in Franche-Comte would have been disastrous. There's a lot more that can be done diplomatic-wise in V2 in regards to military access than it's currently handled, which is pretty much "lol, not letting you in, but I'll let your enemy pass!" and not have any kind of CB against them. On the flip side, neutrality really should mean something, and that includes military access treaties.

 

[Evans]

It's not really something we can make modable, I'm afraid. Besides, if we made retreat into hostile territory impossible Xenophon's ghost would haunt us for all time

Since armies can't retreat when there's an enemy unit there, why can't we tell the engine that there's an enemy unit in all enemy occupied provinces? Is it something you could code into the game? This issue, combined with the Military Access problem basically makes warfare in Victoria 2 a sketchy and confusing brawl rather than feeling like a military campaign. It's extremely irritating to see Sardinia Piedmonte defeated by a Austrian lightning strike manouvre through neutral Switzerland, or to watch the French take the decision when fighting a war against Prussia and Austria to dispatch a force to Milan via Bern... Fronts matter for nothing when flanking can be gained so easily, especially when they are porous anyway. Leaving units behind the front is a micromanagement pain and in my experience they just zerged because you can't cover all the avenues of approach thanks to those "neutral" countries.

 

[s1234567890m]

declare on those nuetral countries...

 

[Evans]

Not an option for a country with a small lil' military. Actually, I'd like to ask the devs is there any way I can mod military access out altogether?

 

[Revshawn]

declare on those nuetral countries...

Yeah that's awful smart. Declaring war on a Neutral country so you can kill the army of the nation you're at war with. Oh wait! The neutral country has an army too. Well crap. Gotta kill them too. Oh wait! They retreated into a neutral country. Gotta declare war on them too!

*A few months later*

Well crap. I'm at war with half of Europe.

 

[unmerged(160565)]

declare on those nuetral countries...

Now you cant just 'declare' and take an infamy hit, which sort of bugs me... you NEED to justify it. Basicly you have to plan your wars like a year or so ahead of time.

 

[s1234567890m]

justify a minor CB, with a jingoistic gov, doesnt take long

 

[Naveed]

So I noticed that my units retreated into allied but not at war nations territory. I don't recall that happening before AHD but I suppose it's possible I just missed it. Do you automatically get military access with allies now?

 

[Phystarstk]

Is there any real tactical combat in Victoria 2? I remember, in the first one, you got attack bonuses for attacking a territory from multiple directions, and I think there was some penalty for being surrounded or out of supply. I didn't play Vicky 2 that much when it came out, but it felt oddly like EU... considering the era. You couldn't exactly live off the land behind enemy lines as a WWI-style army.

Edit: Of course, I don't mean tactical in terms of tactics within battles. I just don't remember positioning or anything really seeming to matter when I played Vicky 2, contra to the first game.

 

[Evans]

Is there any real tactical combat in Victoria 2? I remember, in the first one, you got attack bonuses for attacking a territory from multiple directions, and I think there was some penalty for being surrounded or out of supply. I didn't play Vicky 2 that much when it came out, but it felt oddly like EU... considering the era. You couldn't exactly live off the land behind enemy lines as a WWI-style army.

Edit: Of course, I don't mean tactical in terms of tactics within battles. I just don't remember positioning or anything really seeming to matter when I played Vicky 2, contra to the first game.

That's a good summary of it yes, in this regard Victoria's approach was far superior to Victoria 2!

 

[Phystarstk]

That's a good summary of it yes, in this regard Victoria's approach was far superior to Victoria 2!

So sad.... Honestly, that was one of my favorite elements of Victoria 1. World War 1 actually had be approached with the mindset of the era.

 

[Castruccio]

It's not really something we can make modable, I'm afraid. Besides, if we made retreat into hostile territory impossible Xenophon's ghost would haunt us for all time

Please make a P'dox game on Xenophon or Ancient Greece. That is all.

 

[/pol/ is board of peace]

another issue: after victorious battle tooltip would tell you where enemy's army is retreating. am i missing something or that feature is gone?
so right now we have constant ping pong skirmishes without any way to tell where opponent's army is fleeing. blind hunting blind hunting everywhere



edit: ok, retreat direction is there however it doesn't show when sprites are off and counters are on (i hate sprites and want to play with counters only). it was ok before AHD
*sigh*