Petition to Paradox: Keep the current percentage-based terrain system

[Comes Imperii]

As the current Dev Diary 8 thread has shown

Spoiler

Fixed price and fixed terrain seems very arcadic.

One Province - One Terrain: so maneuver for land is virtually useless now. You could display the calculated possibility of terrain on a province with the general's maneuver ability taken into consideration. I really don't like it.. Battles should have some elements of unpredictability. Clauswitz said all battles eventually become chaos due to unpredictable turnout of events - predictable battlefield is something not very realistic.

I honestly don't like this. But I guess it follows a trend of chopping away everything that requires a modicum of effort to be made more clear or interesting.

I'm not a big fan of removing the terrain randomness either, and I think most of the other features presented on this dev diary are close to uselessness.

The terrain change also seems iffy, though I am eager to see how it plays.

Whilst the fixed terrains certainly make things more predictable, they as well make the combat system less complex and additional nerf leader maneuver. I'm really against that change.

CK2 has also a much much much more detailed combat system that makes up for it, and much more province for a given landmass that allow to conserve some granularity while having only one terrain per province

I fear that, ironically, Combat will now be more shallow in the Patch named "Art of War" as a result of this change.

One terrain, one province: This harkens back to...what, EU1 and 2? It's not the worst thing that could happen, but really if we're accepting that a 'battle' actually consists of two armies manoeuvring through the province to achieve advantage, then who's to say where the battle will be held?

Don't like simplified terrain, do ike river changes. Unforuntate that you decided to take both.

A terrible change to the territory. Makes maneuver a bit more useless as well.

1 province 1 terrain = weak sauce

All is good except the one terrain for each province thing. Boring and too simplistic. A step backwards. Reconsider it.

Yes, I agree, I really don't like this change, I like the unpredictability of the current system and there's more of a point to having a good maneuver leader currently. If the fixed terrain system is going to happen, maybe at least make high maneuver have give some reduction to terrain penalties, though I would still prefer the current system

unpredictability of battles added excitement and reality but if you wanted to mitigate against surprises you used leaders with high maneuverability? I'm all for game optimisation but this feels like a dumbing down to Risk boardgame levels.

As the expansion was called "The Art of War" I was looking forward to a bit more complexity in combat not less. So many features in March of the Eagles and even CKII that could have adopted/adapted.

90% cool.
10% but I liked multiple terrains per province.

Hum, kinda, although I am split on that matter.

I liked the added randomness of the current rules. But it was not one of the necessary fetures of the newer games. I can very well live with only one Terrain/province.

Making terrain fixed and changing demand ae potentially two VERY stupid things.

Why the hell mess with terrain? So maneuver will only be used for speed and attrition?

The removal of supply and demand and random terrain is absolutely terrible. The devs have chosen not to answer why on these changes showing that even they don't know why it happened

One-terrain per province I don't like so much. I'm not really sure why this one was made, because I thought the randomized terrain was more realistic. Not to mention the concerns about how it's a nerf to maneuverability.

now with these fixed prices and the 'one prov - one terrain' thingy you have finally made me regret buying this game ever. (let alone pre-ordering it.)

congrats from someone who has been playing your games for more than 10 years now.

there are many people who think that the 1 province 1 terrain system is a bad change.
Besides counting on the popular will, I will state my own three reasons for claiming that that would indeed be a bad change, hoping for others to add theirs and help me refine my points.

1) It removes unpredictability, which is nice mainly because of two reasons:

• From a historical-realistic point of view, it sort of represents both the chance factor of battles (see Clausewitz) and, more importantly, the moment when generals tried to gain the best terrain
  advantage before engaging the enemy. I'll just remember two most famous examples of this happening in history. Firstly, the top quality military manoeuvres of Turenne and Montecuccoli
  on the Rhine during the Franco-Dutch war in 1675. Secondly, Napoleon's two Italian campaigns (1796-7 and 1800) where, thanks to his *6 pips in manoeuvre stat* he was able to outmanoeuvre the
  Austrians and avoid what would be the Mountain penalty in EUIV. Yet, he was fighting in in the Alps.
• Gameplay-wise. It will worsen the current WW1 strategy in MP games, since by knowing that for instance Alps will always be Mountains, players will almost never attack,
  while now if I am France and I have a general much better at manoeuvre compared to my Austrian rival I may very well try to attack in a province with a relatively small percentage of Mountains.

2) It nerfs leader manoeuvre stat significantly.
3) It reduces complexity and pre-war planning, unnecessarily simplifying the much more complex reality of provinces.

Now, one could argue that the terrain penalties did not make much sense in the first place, since battles were almost never fought on a mountain slope and woods hampered the attacker as well as the defender, and often made up only a part of the battlefield. However, I'd argue that the terrain, more than representing actual the actual battlefield, represents the movement armies made before engaging in order to get the best possible advantage in battle (this may include the Napoleonic tactics of manoeuvre sur le derrières - excuse my French, field fortifications and outflanking).

So unless the terrain system is reworked like this (just some examples, not that I endorse those)

Spoiler

The proper way to do it: attacking general maneuver overcomes defending general maneuver and terrain penalties.

6 maneuver general attacking 3 maneuver general in mountains, across river = 0 penalty.

Even better, if your pips are better, the defender gets the penalty!

I love the changes! Especially the terrain change!

This makes me feel like land maneuver should directly reduce the die penalty from terrain. I don't know how exactly. Perhaps min(die penalty + manuver differential, 0)?

in order to take care of these added layers of complexity, I'd ask you, Paradox, to keep the system as it is now in 1.7.3

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT against the change as such, but I'd like Paradox to rework the system as to make Manouvre matter at least as it does now and terrain more interesting.

 

[oblio-]

-1

You do know that they said nothing about how they're changing general maneuver, right?
It sounds quite reasonable that the new maneuver stat will do something with the current setup.
So until we get more details from Paradox, downvoted.

Also:

3) It removes unpredictability

:laugh: Really? In a game where entire wars are decided by dice rolls? :laugh:

 

[WeissRaben]

-1

You do know that they said nothing about how they're changing general maneuver, right?
It sounds quite reasonable that the new maneuver stat will do something with the current setup.
So until we get more details from Paradox, downvoted.

Like they did with Reformed, yes?

 

[oblio-]

Like they did with Reformed, yes?

You mean the DLC-only features? Can you give more details please?

Plus - Reformed is frankly a fringe feature when compared to the game's core which is war/combat. I doubt that they will treat such things carelessly - more so since they're fixing a lot of annoyances related to war in this patch.

 

[WeissRaben]

You mean the DLC-only features? Can you give more details please?

Plus - Reformed is frankly a fringe feature when compared to the game's core which is war/combat. I doubt that they will treat such things carelessly - more so since they're fixing a lot of annoyances related to war in this patch.

I mean that they maimed the religion in order to not make the DLC features OP. You don't have the DLC? Eeeeeeh. Enjoy Reformed having lost its trading bonuses and having become useful as a 43-bucks banknote.

 

[Comes Imperii]

You do know that they said nothing about how they're changing general maneuver, right?

Exactly, they said nothing and thus I expect that they won't change it, otherwise why didn't they mention it in the same diary?

:laugh: Really? In a game where entire wars are decided by dice rolls? :laugh:

Did you read my two reasons for that claim? I'd like you to argue with them. Ridiculing an argument is not the same as confuting it.

Like they did with Reformed, yes?

I have I hope your support with this petition

 

[Clownie]

Posting to support OP. I like the terrain system. It could be improved, but assuming that the only changes are the ones we were shown in the dev diary, I think it'd be better to keep it as-is.

 

[Comes Imperii]

Posting to support OP. I like the terrain system. It could be improved, but assuming that the only changes are the ones we were shown in the dev diary, I think it'd be better to keep it as-is.

Thanks mate! That's what I thought, either make something better/more interesting or leave it as it is, but don't just scrap it.

 

[Lakedaimon]

Gotta agree there, if anything I'd like it to become deeper, perhaps give the player some control over it, but simplifying it to the point where it is the same terrain 100% of the time would just make the whole thing too static.

 

[Qoff]

The defender should be able to choose the terrain. And is kind of obvious that they Will choose the most beneficial one.

 

[Comes Imperii]

The defender should be able to choose the terrain.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Qoff]

Care to elaborate?

The defender was in that place first so he would choose where they would battle.

 

[Comes Imperii]

The defender was in that place first so he would choose where they would battle.

So you would prefer 1 province 1 terrain?

 

[Qoff]

So you would prefer 1 province 1 terrain?

Honestly I think that many terrains are a good thing for the deept of the game, but it shouldn't be random, the defender should be able to choose, the problem is that even if the defender had this option the choices would be obvious, they would pick the most benefitial terrain for them what would make several terrains a worthless option.

 

[Comes Imperii]

Honestly I think that many terrains are a good thing for the deept of the game, bit it shouldn't be random, the defender should be able to choose, the problem is that even if the defender had this option the choices would be obvious, they would pick the most benefitial terrain for them what would make several terrains a worthless option.

Maybe just make it so that the highest manouevre general decides which terrain to pick and as a tie-breaker the defender always has the precedence?
And maybe using the percentage as a combat-width modifier? I mean if plains is 20% fighting there will reduce combat width a bit, don't know about the numbers though.

 

[Ololorium]

-1. The changes are great. I would buy the whole DLC just because of them. Finally, river crossings are not randomly everywhere!

 

[Qoff]

Maybe just make it so that the highest manouevre general decides which terrain to pick and as a tie-breaker the defender always has the precedence?
And maybe using the percentage as a combat-width modifier? I mean if plains is 20% fighting there will reduce combat width a bit, don't know about the numbers though.

Maybe, but if the defender is in some province for a while, 10 days for example, would make sense that, in this case, the terrain would always be defined by the defender.

 

[Comes Imperii]

-1. The changes are great. I would buy the whole DLC just because of them. Finally, river crossings are not randomly everywhere!

I am not arguing against UI optimizations, which are always welcome, I am arguing against the dumbing down of an otherwise interesting system.
Was it perfect? No, of course. Could it be improved? Probably yes. Do I like laziness in finding solutions? Not much.

 

[Comes Imperii]

Maybe, but if the defender is in some province for a while, 10 days for example, would make sense that, in this case, the terrain would always be defined by the defender.

Then I'd argue for the removal of terrain modifiers for battles (they should still be there for suppply limit, attrition and *maybe* combat width) and instead add the much desired dig-in bonus, with defensive ideas maybe granting +1 dig-in level.

 

[Frossa]

It's a wonderful feeling when you attack into a 70% Mountain Province and manage to get the 4% Plains. It's a slight annoyance to defend in the same Province and the attacking enemy manages to get the 4% Plains, but the joy in having it work out your way outweighs the disappointment of having it go the enemy's way. I'd hate to see the necessity of Maneuver decreased even further than it currently is (the slight movement speed buff and less Attrition bonuses granted by even a 6 Maneuver General is negligible, at most you'll get to your destination mere five days early, or avoid 0.5% of Attrition), it'd make a 2/1/6/0 General vastly inferior to a 2/2/1/0. As it is in the game right now, I'd pick the former General over the second one any day.