Stupid Combat system

[unmerged(15046)]

I must say I hate the combat system

Playing as France, I get dowed by Austria.
I manage to seize some provinces while beating it on a defensive actions.
Eventually, I'm faced with either :
1) Leave an army on each conquered province, watching them bleeding through attrition
2) Circle a few good army with attrition less leaders other conquered provinces to swat off small units or partisans.

Anyway I'm often drawn to a stallmate because I can't go further without a large manpower drain.

Gone are the decivise battle...
No way to make peace, even without it's capital and like 20 occupied provinces, those damn austrians won't make peace, after 3 years of fight...

So, disgusted, I finally manage to settle with the lowest cost province possible and have a so... glorious peace.

IHMO War is only an option in Victoria when fighting against seriously lowers odds, like 3 to 1 or more...

IHMO : a conquered province SHOULD not generate such disgusting manpower loss...

After all, after 3 years of occupation, your armies should be able to pacify the zone, build railroad, etc...

Not every fight is a barbarossa !

 

[veji2]

I agree that attrition should lower when you control a province, and slowly disappear in say 6 months, if you stay in control of that province to emulate the fact that you have developped a local supply system.

 

[Spruce]

I must say I hate the combat system
1) Leave an army on each conquered province, watching them bleeding through attrition
2) Circle a few good army with attrition less leaders other conquered provinces to swat off small units or partisans.

what if Hitler left France, Belgium, Norway, Neterlands, etc. onoccupied during WWII? Do you believe the people would say, hm we shouldn't revolt because the enemy CAN come back? That's not realistic,

so get yourself some garrison divisions, that's life. I agree with you there should be an option to break down 1 division into 4 smaller irregular units (that can be reinforced to 10.000). This is no exploit, trust me,

if you are on the offensive and you've overstrechted yourself, don't blame the game engine for it. Blame yourself, like I do, I overstretch ALL the time,

the best thing to have is an exp. corps from another nation that runs around the back lines to put down revolts,

attrition techs wil get the attrition to decent size, there's a model anyhow, that's why I like it,

 

[unmerged(19226)]

I think that combat system is one of the best aspects of Victoria. As said Spruce it's not easy and you should carefully calculate everything before doing something especially when you're fighting with one of the strongest empires in your current game. In my actual game for example my worst enemy is Brasil (I'm reconquering South America as Spain) and it is able to mobilize even stronger armies than mine but I like it. I think that partisans are good modelled in game. Fighting with Peru or Venezuela all I had to do is to keep 2-4 divisions behind front lines. I think it's historically correct and moreover it's enjoyable.

 

[OndGud]

Maybe there should be an option to garrison occupied provinces costing manpower to do(like the reinforce button on divisions). Costing like 1-5 manpower depending on population and if done there would be no or very very low risk of partisans.

This would free up precious divisions but still be a drain on manpower in tough long conflicts.

Also, drastically cut down on manpowergain from certain areas. Atm thousands of manpower can be gained from buying Bengal from UK. While this manpower cannot create the best of troops one can reinforce any unit with it.

 

[Spruce]

Maybe there should be an option to garrison occupied provinces costing manpower to do(like the reinforce button on divisions). Costing like 1-5 manpower depending on population and if done there would be no or very very low risk of partisans.

This would free up precious divisions but still be a drain on manpower in tough long conflicts.

Also, drastically cut down on manpowergain from certain areas. Atm thousands of manpower can be gained from buying Bengal from UK. While this manpower cannot create the best of troops one can reinforce any unit with it.

why not allowing to split one division into 4 (or 5, whatever) irregulars-garrison untis. It stands for the limited military power of the units? Not one player will throw their irregulars in the frontline against regulars, it would be a waste of manpower, but for putting down revolts they seem ok to me?

 

[OndGud]

why not allowing to split one division into 4 (or 5, whatever) irregulars-garrison untis. It stands for the limited military power of the units? Not one player will throw their irregulars in the frontline against regulars, it would be a waste of manpower, but for putting down revolts they seem ok to me?

Not a bad idea, however I'm not very fond of having to dot the map with divisions. The "exploit" with this tho would be the ability to mass create irregulars and paint your country with them. That way you'd get the -0.2 militancy very cheaply everywhere.

 

[unmerged(3249)]

Does having military unit inside state reduce revolt risk?

I think it should, perhaps there could be option to tell unit to "split" itself into small garrison units inside state and this would reduce units combat strength if real enemy units would attack it, but it would keep population in state under control.

I don't think having 1 division per state is too big requirement for occupied areas.

 

[unmerged(14180)]

I personally don't have a prob with Attrition, and combat generally works fine, just piss off the regular Partisans and the huge amounts of them and im happy.

1 division per state might make the cut, depending largely upon the size of said state.

 

[OriginalRafiki]

Does having military unit inside state reduce revolt risk?

It does. Take a look at the militancy modifier details for a POP that's located in a province containing any of your units.

Rafiki

 

[unmerged(5261)]

So, can I create irregular units?
When I raise a division I only get the option of regular......




.

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

why not allow the splitting of a division in 2 or 4 regiments at 1/2 or 1/4th the strenght and reinforcable only to that strength? (a max of 2500 men)

 

[OriginalRafiki]

I think only uncivilized countries can make irregulars.

For others, you can make regular, colonial or native quality inf, cav or dragoons. The quality depends on statehood status of the state in which the unit-to-be's home-province is located and the culture of the soldier POP compared to you state cultures.

Anyway, if you can create "normal" troops, why would you want to make irregulars?

Rafiki

 

[unmerged(5261)]

But, wouldn't a division per province be historically accurate?

Anyway, what I do its to keep a division or two per 3 or 4 provinces or per state (if not that big), and then move it to crush the rebelions when they appear. It works when playing minors, but I guess it must be a lot of micromanaging when playing a major with many occupied provinces.


.

 

[unmerged(14180)]

A division per province would not be historically accurate.

Have a read up on the Military of the British empire, it used mere brigades to cover literally thousands of miles.

The current system regarding garrison needs and partisans is, as i have said in another post, as historic as Space Nazis invading Europe.

 

[unmerged(15046)]

Well

What I dislike in the way military is handled is also tied to the very poor negotiation system when in war.

I mean if austria attacks me, and I beat them back, then take numerous province + capital, it is really strange that after a few years of war I can't settle some kind of peace...

Also it's maddening my armies start decreasing, due to attrition at being stationned on occupied enemy provinces !!!

So if I station a large defensive army in enemy territories, it drains my manpower just staying on the defensive without fighting... 3% / Year ~1/3 of the army dead in one year !!!!

In russia, I had attritions rates of 25%.... Which I can understand in hostile (climat, temparature, etc..) countries... But still, 3% in vienna ???

In Real Life, IHMO (only made one conscript year in the army, so I'm no specialist) :
* occupation troops rarely suffers the 3% attrition a month in victoria... compared to '0%' attrition when in a national province
* no army would wait a peace treaty to set a logistic chain in occupied territories !!!
* I should be able to fortify if the war is dragging longer
* No partisans were able to raise fully equiped divisions on the rear of the ennemy.. It was mainly a loss of org, movement, logistic, etc..

 

[unmerged(14180)]

3% isn't a third.

but i hear you about the rest, and i mostly agree.

 

[Theodotus1]

The way to fight partisans is to use rapid reaction forces composed of cavalry. Leaving lots of garrison troops is not cost effective.

 

[unmerged(5261)]

Well

What I dislike in the way military is handled is also tied to the very poor negotiation system when in war.

I mean if austria attacks me, and I beat them back, then take numerous province + capital, it is really strange that after a few years of war I can't settle some kind of peace.....

If a defending army have enough strategy depth, they can trade space per time. They can see that you are overstreched and that you cannot longer continue your offensive, while you may have problem to deal with their possibly upcoming counter-offensive.
Its like Hitler in winter 1941 asking why Stalin doesn't surrender.

Also it's maddening my armies start decreasing, due to attrition at being stationned on occupied enemy provinces !!!

So if I station a large defensive army in enemy territories, it drains my manpower just staying on the defensive without fighting... 3% / Year ~1/3 of the army dead in one year !!!!..

I think that's kind of realistic. Though I don't know what the rates should be for the period, I assume they were higher than they are today.


.

 

[unmerged(16133)]

It does. Take a look at the militancy modifier details for a POP that's located in a province containing any of your units.

Rafiki

well it lowers militancy not revolt risk, the two sound like they should be interconnected but from what i can tell they are not, pops with a revolt risk of over 20% and growing while having a militancy and conciousness of less than 1