Proportionality in warfare

[Willem IV]

A crazy idea, but try to imagine that the world in divided in regions, British Isles, Iberia, South Africa, Persia, Indochina, etc. etc.
When you declare war against Great Britain with the Cape Colony as target. All South African battles/occupation would count heavy (500%) towards the warscore, actions in Birma or Gibraltar would count very little (20%) and of course bringing the fight to the homeland would count normally (100%). This way being successful in the contested region, would benefit you in warscore quickly.

Warscore 2x times the wargoal should be enough, once you won at least 2 battles.

(numbers just roughly an idea)

 

[grommile]

When you declare war against Great Britain with the Cape Colony as target.

In a war against Great Britain where the Cape Colony is the only declared stakes, occupying a single province in these islands should count for more than occupying the colony itself... but should be a logistical nightmare and damage other European powers' opinion of you.

 

[Willem IV]

The problem is that as Transvaal I have chances invading the colony, and able to try to keep the Brits out, and the score should be high if I succeed. For France invading the Isles should be the strategy to go. But as Spain occupying Gibraltar and Singapore should be a waste of time.
logistics should always be a factor, as well a opinion of other Great Powers.
The Ottoman, France & Spain should like me more for that, as they don’t like the Brits anyway.
Prussia, Netherlands and US of A should indeed like me less.

 

[grommile]

The Ottoman, France & Spain should like me more for that, as they don’t like the Brits anyway.

Colonial empires have a strong interest in colonial border disputes staying colonial.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

I think the key here would be to combine 2 elements :

1. Import Stellaris's "war exhaustion" mechanic, whereby you have to peace out if you hit 100% war exhaustion. Make it so that defeats in defensive wars, or ww1 style conflicts with other great powers inflict relatively little war exhaustion, but defeats in colonial "expeditions" against unrecognised powers inflict high war exhaustion ("How could you be defeated by a bunch of half naked spearmen???" ).

2. Make it expensive and difficult to deploy soldiers in certain areas. The limited logistics in many parts of the map should give unrecognised powers a fighting chance.

 

[Sarmatian]

A lot of great ideas, the problem is however teaching AI how to handle this.

 

[Jef Wauters]

A lot of great ideas, the problem is however teaching AI how to handle this.

Teaching the AI would certainly be one of the biggest challengers of implementing this, but to be optimistic, wouldn't this also help the AI? It would prevent AI countries from committing national suicide via labour and money lost on a smaller, inconsequential war.

 

[Askorti]

I think the key here would be to combine 2 elements :

1. Import Stellaris's "war exhaustion" mechanic, whereby you have to peace out if you hit 100% war exhaustion. Make it so that defeats in defensive wars, or ww1 style conflicts with other great powers inflict relatively little war exhaustion, but defeats in colonial "expeditions" against unrecognised powers inflict high war exhaustion ("How could you be defeated by a bunch of half naked spearmen???" ).

2. Make it expensive and difficult to deploy soldiers in certain areas. The limited logistics in many parts of the map should give unrecognised powers a fighting chance.

I'm absolutely against *having* to peace out at 100%. And Stellaris is actually a great example of how *not* to handle war scores, as the system there is absolutely garbage, where you have to occupy pretty much 100% of the enemy territory to get your demands met.

But I do agree that some kind of war exhaustion system would be a good idea, just do not, under any circumstances, base it on the Stellaris one.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

I'm absolutely against *having* to peace out at 100%. And Stellaris is actually a great example of how *not* to handle war scores, as the system there is absolutely garbage, where you have to occupy pretty much 100% of the enemy territory to get your demands met.

But I do agree that some kind of war exhaustion system would be a good idea, just do not, under any circumstances, base it on the Stellaris one.

The issue in stellaris is just the way the numbers are balanced. If the balance moved away from occupations and more towards battles you wouldn't have these wars that drag on excessively.

 

[fspades]

All of the suggestions for making overseas wars more costly are fine, yet many of them are forgetting the big problem of PDS games: the AI. If you only provide strong disincentives for shipping armies to mainland China, that's all fine for the player, but you have given the AI the rope to hang itself. Even in CK3, their most recent game, the AI will raise ALL of its levies against a weaker enemy, bring overwhelming force, and then spend years besieging their holdings one by one for years, and bankrupting themselves in the process. Frigging Genghis Khan takes a decade to conquer a mid-sized power in Central Asia. You rarely notice it because bankruptcy isn't a huge deal in CK3, but what happens if you make the consequences of a costly war more serious in Vicky 3? I have come to believe that the design of these games should be partially shaped around the inevitable limitations of the AI.

So I'm sad to say that good solutions to this issue would be by making hard rules rather than giving disincentives. Make it impossible (for the AI as well as the player) to ship armies across the world without fulfilling necessary conditions. The thing is, it's harder to design it that way. Creating some modifiers or values like war exhaustion is easy, but how do you forbid sending armies to somewhere in a game where the player expects to have total control of the military?

 

[Don_Quigleone]

All of the suggestions for making overseas wars more costly are fine, yet many of them are forgetting the big problem of PDS games: the AI. If you only provide strong disincentives for shipping armies to mainland China, that's all fine for the player, but you have given the AI the rope to hang itself. Even in CK3, their most recent game, the AI will raise ALL of its levies against a weaker enemy, bring overwhelming force, and then spend years besieging their holdings one by one for years, and bankrupting themselves in the process. Frigging Genghis Khan takes a decade to conquer a mid-sized power in Central Asia. You rarely notice it because bankruptcy isn't a huge deal in CK3, but what happens if you make the consequences of a costly war more serious in Vicky 3? I have come to believe that the design of these games should be partially shaped around the inevitable limitations of the AI.

So I'm sad to say that good solutions to this issue would be by making hard rules rather than giving disincentives. Make it impossible (for the AI as well as the player) to ship armies across the world without fulfilling necessary conditions. The thing is, it's harder to design it that way. Creating some modifiers or values like war exhaustion is easy, but how do you forbid sending armies to somewhere in a game where the player expects to have total control of the military?

I actually think this might make for better gameplay regardless. In most pdx games the only limit on the number of units you can use is the supply limit in one province, which just means that instead of using 1 big army you micro 6 smaller ones and just bring them together for battles, which just adds micro and doesn't solve the problem at all.

Instead, perhaps the map should be split into "theatres" with hard limits to the number of units you can deploy in any given theatre based on infrastructure and technology. You can only go over the limit using local auxiliaries. Extra troops over the limit in a theatre can arrive in port, but can't physically leave the port.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

All of the suggestions for making overseas wars more costly are fine, yet many of them are forgetting the big problem of PDS games: the AI. If you only provide strong disincentives for shipping armies to mainland China, that's all fine for the player, but you have given the AI the rope to hang itself. Even in CK3, their most recent game, the AI will raise ALL of its levies against a weaker enemy, bring overwhelming force, and then spend years besieging their holdings one by one for years, and bankrupting themselves in the process. Frigging Genghis Khan takes a decade to conquer a mid-sized power in Central Asia. You rarely notice it because bankruptcy isn't a huge deal in CK3, but what happens if you make the consequences of a costly war more serious in Vicky 3? I have come to believe that the design of these games should be partially shaped around the inevitable limitations of the AI.

So I'm sad to say that good solutions to this issue would be by making hard rules rather than giving disincentives. Make it impossible (for the AI as well as the player) to ship armies across the world without fulfilling necessary conditions. The thing is, it's harder to design it that way. Creating some modifiers or values like war exhaustion is easy, but how do you forbid sending armies to somewhere in a game where the player expects to have total control of the military?

There were a couple of good propositions in this thread before. First, supply limit. It could work similarly to hoi4 with supply limit set for whole regions rather than provinces. I think its not impossible to make ai not grossly ignore supply limit. Second thing is limit of naval operations - it shouldn't be possible for Denmark to send hundred thousands men to New Guinea. Like in hoi4, again - you can't send invasion force just wherever you want. In vic3 you should be forced to have naval bases not too far to resupply, as well as proper intelligence.
Now diplomatic reasons. First, when fighting aggressive war against undeveloped nation, something like war support (like the thing in eu4) should be very low and end quickly compared to war support when you defend from another GP in europe for example. Second, score for battles in such wars should be much larger, just like score over time.
Those logistical and diplomatic reasons combined would mean that unless there are some exceptional circumstances, such colonial wars would mostly mean sending one expeditionary force that either succeeds or gets beaten and if it gets beaten, ai might not be capable of sending another force before war support drops and war score gets high for enemy, making them make peace.

 

[fspades]

There were a couple of good propositions in this thread before. First, supply limit. It could work similarly to hoi4 with supply limit set for whole regions rather than provinces. I think its not impossible to make ai not grossly ignore supply limit. Second thing is limit of naval operations - it shouldn't be possible for Denmark to send hundred thousands men to New Guinea. Like in hoi4, again - you can't send invasion force just wherever you want. In vic3 you should be forced to have naval bases not too far to resupply, as well as proper intelligence.
Now diplomatic reasons. First, when fighting aggressive war against undeveloped nation, something like war support (like the thing in eu4) should be very low and end quickly compared to war support when you defend from another GP in europe for example. Second, score for battles in such wars should be much larger, just like score over time.
Those logistical and diplomatic reasons combined would mean that unless there are some exceptional circumstances, such colonial wars would mostly mean sending one expeditionary force that either succeeds or gets beaten and if it gets beaten, ai might not be capable of sending another force before war support drops and war score gets high for enemy, making them make peace.

I never played hoi4, but it's a good thing if it is working like that. Can you explain further?

I also somewhat remember the devs saying naval logistics being a much bigger deal than before but can't remember where. In either case I get the impression that military and warfare stuff is still being experimented upon. I just hope that they make sure the AI can deal with whatever they'll come up with.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

I never played hoi4, but it's a good thing if it is working like that. Can you explain further?

I also somewhat remember the devs saying naval logistics being a much bigger deal than before but can't remember where. In either case I get the impression that military and warfare stuff is still being experimented upon. I just hope that they make sure the AI can deal with whatever they'll come up with.

You mean naval operations? You need a port reasonably near the target and your fleet needs to control the entire sea route, there is a measure of control and if its above 50 percent it means you have sufficient intelligence and can proceed. Also at least in some mods the amount of divisions you can send for invasion is restricted by technology.

 

[The Mysterious Dr. Butter]

I think you need to return to the history and really think about why the Italians pulled out. They had an incredibly weak economy and were only able to maintain national fervor through imperialism and chauvinism. Being crushed by a country that you deemed inferior is great way to destroy that chauvinism and led to the collapse of the government. If you have a shaky government, and a poor economy and you start loosing a war that isn't necessary or suffer a decisive defeat you should face huge internal problems. It wouldn't be too hard to create a mechanic that shows how much your population is willing to put up with before they start getting mad. You could start by putting Casus belli into categories based on how much your population cares. Like your population will not suffer through a world war for a repay debts Casus belli, but might for a retake core or defensive war. Then depending on the country your fighting, like France is willing to suffer through much more in war against Germany that it would against china, based on either scripted modifiers and such and your relationship with that country. This number combines with economic and political factors that are already simulated through other mechanics to increase radicalism and start movements against your actions. So if you have a strong economy and stable government the effect of a frivolous war is not that big, but should your country be in shambles a stupid war will just pour gasoline on the fire and accelerate every problem in your country.

 

[The Goldfinch]

I think you need to return to the history and really think about why the Italians pulled out. They had an incredibly weak economy and were only able to maintain national fervor through imperialism and chauvinism. Being crushed by a country that you deemed inferior is great way to destroy that chauvinism and led to the collapse of the government. If you have a shaky government, and a poor economy and you start loosing a war that isn't necessary or suffer a decisive defeat you should face huge internal problems. It wouldn't be too hard to create a mechanic that shows how much your population is willing to put up with before they start getting mad. You could start by putting Casus belli into categories based on how much your population cares. Like your population will not suffer through a world war for a repay debts Casus belli, but might for a retake core or defensive war. Then depending on the country your fighting, like France is willing to suffer through much more in war against Germany that it would against china, based on either scripted modifiers and such and your relationship with that country. This number combines with economic and political factors that are already simulated through other mechanics to increase radicalism and start movements against your actions. So if you have a strong economy and stable government the effect of a frivolous war is not that big, but should your country be in shambles a stupid war will just pour gasoline on the fire and accelerate every problem in your country.

Well different support depending on CBs, war support based on adversary are all great ideas (I think I suggested them at the beginning of the discussion).

As for the smaller Impact of disastrous losses on a strong economy - that is also correct (less radicalized pops are less likely to revolt), although we have to remember wealthy societies also didnt like sending their sons to senseless slaughter. British economy was afaik perfectly fine during crimean war, yet society strongly protested military casualties, and brought a government down because of it.