[Suggestion] Capture system with a logic similar to the oriental game of Go.

[Simon Marques]

Hello, Merry Christmas to everyone!

Well, when playing several games I realized that the game could have this improvement, by surrounding a territory, there being no enemy troops there, wouldn't it be the case that this territory would be automatically captured?

In other words, the capture of territories by means of surround, if there are no enemy troops to defend these surrounded territories, it makes no sense that they remain in the hands of the enemies. This would help us to save on the use of divisions.

Think the pieces on the board as divisions, then you need to capture as much territory with as few resources as possible, this is basically Go's logic and I believe this helps to reduce the use of divisions in our strategies.

Below are some suggestions for improvements from those who participated in the debate

Maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to insert in the automatic capture rule the victory points and the air bases. When I play, my focus is always on the crucial points, so I always create runners in the direction of these points and the rest is ignored, my priority of capture are in the following order:

1st Victory Points.
2nd Airbases and Ports.
3rd Strategic Resources.

So, they could insert in the rule that if there are any of these these three elements in the empty territories the automatic capture is denied. It would be interesting to add a time resource as suggested by our friend @Harin to represent the period before the arrival of logistics personnel to these locations. So, not to say that these territories were magically conquered, let's imagine that they were occupied by the garrisons. Our friend @GrandVezir suggested that reconnaissance would also need to be at a satisfactory level, to allow for accurate information about what is there in those territories, otherwise this becomes unfeasible.

 

[billcorr]

Cool.

How did you create that visual image that changed?

 

[Simon Marques]

How did you create that visual image that changed?

Photoshop.

 

[Legocity264]

I feel like that would be ridiculously OP. All an attacking country would have to do is break through on one province, then send two motorized/cavalry units on opposing semicircle routes. If the defending country doesn't have any reserve troops, then the attacker will be able to capture almost all their industry in one fell swoop. It would also make it harder for defenders to cut off attackers from their supply lines and destroy them. Capturing critical coastline with dockyards, ports, and cities without ever stepping foot on the coast also seems unfair to the defenders.

 

[Simon Marques]

I feel like that would be ridiculously OP. All an attacking country would have to do is break through on one province, then send two motorized/cavalry units on opposing semicircle routes. If the defending country doesn't have any reserve troops, then the attacker will be able to capture almost all their industry in one fell swoop. It would also make it harder for defenders to cut off attackers from their supply lines and destroy them. Capturing critical coastline with dockyards, ports, and cities without ever stepping foot on the coast also seems unfair to the defenders.

Have you ever played this oriental game called "Go"?

Think the pieces on the board as divisions, then you need to capture as much territory with as few resources as possible, this is basically Go's logic and I believe this helps to reduce the use of divisions in our strategies.

 

[Legocity264]

Have you ever played this oriental game called "Go"?

Think the pieces on the board as divisions, then you need to capture as much territory with as few resources as possible, this is basically Go's logic and I believe this helps to reduce the use of divisions in our strategies.

View attachment 663657

No, I have never played "Go." Regardless, while it makes sense logically, gameplay wise it probably wouldn't work. While it would be convenient for the attacker, it also takes away a lot of the strategy and micro management of the game. When you are doing deep penetration rushing for points, chances are you have a thin corridor back to your supply lines. Unless you have lots of units ready to fill that corridor, then there's a high chance you'll get cut off from behind and left to attrition. Using the Go method of auto capturing surrounded territories would make it easier to create wider province corridors, thus making it easier to resupply and harder to get cut off. But the whole point of rushing is high risk, high reward. This change could therefore incentivize more spearheads than large scale offensive line attacks, since the risk of getting cut off is lower due to the auto captured territory (or at least the time to react to getting cut off is increased).

In the end, it would be cool to have a system like it, but I feel it would be too exploitive and lower the skill needed when planning attacks. Minor nations might also become too powerful relative to their smaller armies.

 

[Simon Marques]

No, I have never played "Go." Regardless, while it makes sense logically, gameplay wise it probably wouldn't work. While it would be convenient for the attacker, it also takes away a lot of the strategy and micro management of the game. When you are doing deep penetration rushing for points, chances are you have a thin corridor back to your supply lines. Unless you have lots of units ready to fill that corridor, then there's a high chance you'll get cut off from behind and left to attrition. Using the Go method of auto capturing surrounded territories would make it easier to create wider province corridors, thus making it easier to resupply and harder to get cut off. But the whole point of rushing is high risk, high reward. This change could therefore incentivize more spearheads than large scale offensive line attacks, since the risk of getting cut off is lower due to the auto captured territory (or at least the time to react to getting cut off is increased).

In the end, it would be cool to have a system like it, but I feel it would be too exploitive and lower the skill needed when planning attacks. Minor nations might also become too powerful relative to their smaller armies.

In my last match I was able to execute maneuvers like this without many difficulties, in singleplayer mode, it happens that the AI will not move to the gaps in your line if there are two units at its borders. As in the animation below, the green team has gaps, so the red team tries to take advantage of one of these gaps, and the green team intercepts it. So, even if the enemy tries to take advantage of the gaps in your line, if you know how to organize your troops well you won't have problems with too large corridors.

 

[Znail]

It's actually fairly easy to get this effect in game just by making some one battalion sized motorised units that can swiftly take over anything undefended.

 

[Vlad123]

It's actually fairly easy to get this effect in game just by making some one battalion sized motorised units that can swiftly take over anything undefended.

not really, you always have to manually send them there, this way you can occupy small "surrounded" areas without sending troops there

 

[Simon Marques]

The main benefit of this is the reduction of micro-management, because in an abstract way, this means that this territory is neutralized once all the accesses to it have been controlled by you, so it makes sense that these empty pockets are automatically annexed once your troops have surrounded it.

 

[Harin]

I see why this could be helpful for those random empty pockets behind your lines and you do not want to have to go through the trouble of making one battalion divisions to clean them up. On the other hand freshly made pockets, created by your new offensive should not clear immediately. Allowing resupply so quickly would not be realistic. No commander would risk sending urgently needed supplies and trucks through uncleared territory. Instead they would follow along the routes that have been cleared. Also, large pockets that magically clear inform the player, at no cost, that there are no enemy units inside the pocket. That removes some of the little bit of suspense the game provides.

Adding a time element to this suggestion might make it more acceptable.

 

[Emren]

The main benefit of this is the reduction of micro-management, because in an abstract way, this means that this territory is neutralized once all the accesses to it have been controlled by you, so it makes sense that these empty pockets are automatically annexed once your troops have surrounded it.

This already happens automatically, requiring zero micro, if you’re using battleplans correctly. Yes, you have to have some of your troops walk on the tile, but it doesn’t require any player input assuming the above.

 

[Vlad123]

This already happens automatically, requiring zero micro, if you’re using battleplans correctly. Yes, you have to have some of your troops walk on the tile, but it doesn’t require any player input assuming the above.

pity that hardly anyone uses the battle plans

 

[walt526]

I’m not sure how you would implement this idea without micromanagement and the use of something akin to battle plans.

 

[Vlad123]

I’m not sure how you would implement this idea without micromanagement and the use of something akin to battle plans.

It would be a kind of IF
is it an area surrounded?
are there troops?
if the first is positive and the second is negative, this function is activated

 

[Simon Marques]

It would be a kind of IF
is it an area surrounded?
are there troops?
if the first is positive and the second is negative, this function is activated

Yes, something like that.

Is this area surrounded? If it is true, another question returns; Is it empty?

If it is true, it returns annexation activated.

From there the area is attached without the need for your troops to waste time moving around instead of being used on the front line. This implies a certain optimization of the use of divisions.

 

[Simon Marques]

This already happens automatically, requiring zero micro, if you’re using battleplans correctly. Yes, you have to have some of your troops walk on the tile, but it doesn’t require any player input assuming the above.

I don't think you understand my point, the way you explained it, using battle plans, the division still has to occupy the territories one by one, wasting time, my proposal suggests that this waste of time be removed and that once you have surrounded an area that is empty, it should be annexed without any division being required for this.

 

[Emren]

I don't think you understand my point, the way you explained it, using battle plans, the division still has to occupy the territories one by one, wasting time, my proposal suggests that this waste of time be removed and that once you have surrounded an area that is empty, it should be annexed without any division being required for this.

I understand perfectly. Your suggestion would open up even more abuse of the AI, and it would not understand to use it against you. What is ‘empty’? Devoid of troops? How about victory points, can they also be auto-captured? Resources? Airbases? Are there any limitations to the amount of contiguous tiles that can be captured automatically?

 

[Emren]

pity that hardly anyone uses the battle plans

Why wouldn’t you want the benefit of the planning bonus?

 

[CrasherZZ]

No, I have never played "Go." Regardless, while it makes sense logically, gameplay wise it probably wouldn't work. While it would be convenient for the attacker, it also takes away a lot of the strategy and micro management of the game. When you are doing deep penetration rushing for points, chances are you have a thin corridor back to your supply lines. Unless you have lots of units ready to fill that corridor, then there's a high chance you'll get cut off from behind and left to attrition. Using the Go method of auto capturing surrounded territories would make it easier to create wider province corridors, thus making it easier to resupply and harder to get cut off. But the whole point of rushing is high risk, high reward. This change could therefore incentivize more spearheads than large scale offensive line attacks, since the risk of getting cut off is lower due to the auto captured territory (or at least the time to react to getting cut off is increased). In the end, it would be cool to have a system like it, but I feel it would be too exploitive and lower the skill needed when planning attacks. Minor nations might also become too powerful relative to their smaller armies. Yes, this is exactly the why I really hate this "Go" idea. I have created multiple battleplans that successfully created deep penetrations and encirclements by using fast moving divisions - motorized, mechanized, armored, and cavalry. This is a "high risk, high reward" tactic because you risk getting your spearhead cut off and surrounded if you don't have enough infantry securing your supply corridor. It would become too easy to capture territory if you didn't have to worry about securing the areas you have bypassed and encircled. Using Go capture rules would make the game even more abstract and arcade. It's actually a very trivial amount of effort to send a single division into a surrounded, vacant area. The "convenience" of automatic capture is not worth the loss in challenge and realism. I am familiar with the game of Go. Although it's a good and interesting game, one of the reasons I play games like HOI4 is because it's the exact opposite of games like Go. The more different the better, IMO. In my last game I was able to cut off massive junks of Soviet territory by doing very deep penetrations with mechanized armies. The game would have been way too easy if I had automatically captured all of the territory that I encircled according to Go rules. A WW2 game should not work like an abstract board game. ​