Thoughts on the last dev diary and combat system

[Cypres]

Salve Romans,

as Johan has shown in the dev diary the unit types from IR are the same as from eu rome with a few additions. in screenshots and the presentation we could also see that the dmg system has been copied. this means for example that archers deal 125% against light 100% against heavy infantry and 50% against cav etc. unfortunatly this system has the same flaws as in eu rome.

the flaw beeing the system is not really a rock paper sciccor system but just based around if you can afford the most expensive units. in eu rome war elephants are the most expensive, but if you get your hands on them your armys are invincible, they counter everything else and have no weakness. the next best thing is heavy infantry which is good against everything and has almost no weakness.

as you can see not army composition wins battles but simply having the right trade good to build your units and enough money to pay them.

now johan also mentioned different army stances, i guess this will be something like open formation counters cav and war elephants, closed formation counters heavy inf etc but i dont think this will be enough to make the combat system really intresting for me.

however i like the idea of it. somebody mentioned a chess board combat system, which i also like. why not combine those two?

your two armies spawn on the opposite sites of a chess board in the formation you selected for them. you have no controll over your units, they are ai controlled, this is not rome2. every unit has its own specific speed, so a formation moves with the speed of its slowest unit until combat occurs.

https://imgur.com/a/qqxEAMC

during combat the cav will activly try to outflank the enemy units and attack the back with weak 2nd row units. if you have more units than the enemy your units will try to envelop the enemy and attack from multiple directions. archers will try to keep their distance but cannot hope to outrun cav or light infantry once their frontline breaks.

terrain could be simulated( city terrain blocks random tiles in the middle and makes flanking harder, mountain just flat out reduces the size of the chess board) units with low morale try to retreat which might be impossible because your formation is too tight. reeinforcing armies will spawn at the back and have to walk all the way to the front. horse archers would dash to the front and start shooting at the enemy while keeping a safe distance and withdrawing if they get chased.

the beauty of this system would be that you could actually see how your troops behave instead of the abstract 4 line system we have so far that never really simulated flanking and the like.
johan said ir will be the ultimate gsg. i would like it to be more than just a combination of ck2 eu4 and vic2. i would like to see completely new mechanics and systems that set new standards for pdx's next generation of games.


tl;dr i dont want the combat system of vic2/ck2/eu4 getting reused and would like to have an actual rock paper sciccors system

 

[VenueOfDrums]

I like the dynamic nature of your proposed system, i feel that current paradox games has not focused enough on how composition impacts the battle. For example CK2 your unit quantity seems to matter more than unit quality. I would like to see a more complex system that actually rewards experimentation with composition.

 

[icedt729]

My hope is that the combination of stances and traditions end up having a March of the Eagles Lite effect, where different army compositions are rewarded with particular tactical options. Otherwise I do see really simple metas cropping up.

That being said, warfare during this period basically was very simple "metas" based on getting as many high-quality heavy troops (or missile cavalry, as terrain and horse supplies permitted) as you could manage and bringing along inferior troops for support, so it wouldn't necessarily be immersion-shattering if the Romans and Diadochi aren't running lots of archers.

 

[Holy.Death]

so it wouldn't necessarily be immersion-shattering if the Romans and Diadochi aren't running lots of archers.

Given than archers don't cost a resource, I think we will see a plenty of archers.

 

[Denkt]

You are wrong about EU: Rome units

• Heavy infantry is weak against archers
• War elephants is strong against militia and archers, all other units is an even fight with them
• Archers are weak against cavalry and pretty sure they like eu artillery take double damage against everything.

I agree that the combat system could be better.

 

[Cypres]

The basic tactic of eu rome is getting enough heavy infantry to fill the front and archers in the back and then stack modifiers for heavy infantry. my point about elephants is that no other unit had positive dmg modifiers against them which made them pretty much op if you can afford them.

 

[Jamey]

I was pretty unsatisfied with the unit types dev diary. It really left a lot to be desired, as we still don't know how different heavy infantry types will be differentiated (Roman maniples, hoplites, pike phalanx, ...). We also don't know anything about how combat will be resolved (though from what has been said, we're all thinking it will be the Paradox standard two rows on each side facing off).

I'd like to see more depth to combat and units, but right now I'm not optimistic since literally nothing was said in the unit types dev diary that indicated that more was forthcoming.

 

[Durnilhas]

It would be cool to make position pattern with troops and not having a simple "2 rows" system

 

[Thrawn21]

What IR needs are three simple things:

1) More then two rows and the ability to decide about row setup
2) Unit placement in rows (via doctrine or general)
3) Breakthrough and encirclement

Encirclement would mean, if you have not enough troops to guards your flanks, you get a slowly stacking encirclement modificator in combat. It would increases your losses on men and moral.
Breakthrough means at some point your rows have been pierced, you get the same (or similar) modifcator as encirclement.

It would ensure that even rich nations want to safeguard their flanks with troops and not just build one kind of troops, as they could get swarmed then by large armies of trash troops and still suffer heavy losses with encirclements. On the other hand, a breakthrough would still mean disaster for trash troop only armies, as the enemies heavy inf would sooner or later pierce the lines somewhere. The more piercings, the more swiftly the fight will be over.

 

[Sabotage13]

I like the dynamic nature of your proposed system, i feel that current paradox games has not focused enough on how composition impacts the battle. For example CK2 your unit quantity seems to matter more than unit quality. I would like to see a more complex system that actually rewards experimentation with composition.

Unit composition affected battle tactics i.e. combat modifiers in CK2 so it was a huge factor in winning battles, the problem was that you had almost no way to actually influence unit compisition at all unless you were relying on mercenaries and retinues exclusively (or were playing Hordes).

 

[Sabotage13]

I was pretty unsatisfied with the unit types dev diary. It really left a lot to be desired, as we still don't know how different heavy infantry types will be differentiated (Roman maniples, hoplites, pike phalanx, ...). We also don't know anything about how combat will be resolved (though from what has been said, we're all thinking it will be the Paradox standard two rows on each side facing off).

But they already said that. It will be national Ideas/Traditions. So all Roman heavy infantry will benefit from the Roman Legions
tradition, Macedonian heavy infantry will benefit from the Macedonian Phalanx tradition, Spartan heavy infantry will benefit from Spartans 300!!!!!1!1 tradition, you get the idea.

 

[wielkiciensteam]

Salve Romans,

tl;dr i dont want the combat system of vic2/ck2/eu4 getting reused and would like to have an actual rock paper sciccors system

100 % agree, but PDX will never invent and implement any new system into the game that has its core elements already created. If they were to create system like this they would start making I:R from it. As for now - it is too late.
We will get - we won't it or not - EU:Rome 2 with better graphics, more tags and EU4 mana system. That's all I see new from the DD so far. The core will not be changed. Why? Too much work and effort that result in bad outcome -> less money. Simple and sad.

 

[Kliwarrior]

3) Breakthrough and encirclement

There is a "maneuver" value for units , so I think that encirclement will be considered.
Breakthrough would be a GREAT addiction: having this the "wider possible formation" would not be the formation of choice in every tactical situation.
But I'm unsure It will be implemented.

 

[Jamey]

But they already said that. It will be national Ideas/Traditions. So all Roman heavy infantry will benefit from the Roman Legions
tradition, Macedonian heavy infantry will benefit from the Macedonian Phalanx tradition, Spartan heavy infantry will benefit from Spartans 300!!!!!1!1 tradition, you get the idea.

As far as I have seen, "Military Traditions" have been stated as a use for Military Power. What that exactly means is unspecified.

I'm also going to be a bit disappointed if the defining military difference between the various nations is tied to national ideas rather than a military doctrine that can be changed.

 

[stratigo]

I like the dynamic nature of your proposed system, i feel that current paradox games has not focused enough on how composition impacts the battle. For example CK2 your unit quantity seems to matter more than unit quality. I would like to see a more complex system that actually rewards experimentation with composition.

Ck2’s combat is reliant on what tactics fire during a battle. The problem is that it is nearly impossible to ensure beneficial tactics for a mixed levy. It’s the reason why retinues and hordes can win against 5 to 1 odds