Trench Warfare Simulation

[Jools]

When two armies meet in a province the battle doesn't need to end in a few days or weeks.

When the frontline is going through a province there should be a little bar saying how far one side is into the others territory.

i.e. it;s 1915... the French Engage the Germans in Strasbourg (hypothetical province)... A frontline is started. They fight in the province and you order them to attack or maintain positional fighting(this alone is another concept and will require a seperate thread). After three months of fighting in the province the Germans control 80% and the French have to withdraw so the Frontline is broken in Strasbourg which could allow the Germans to flank the front...

During the course of the "battle" there will be causualties as normal and reinforcements could be sent. Different overall strategies could be assumed like Defensive Stance, Aggressive Stance etc... which would determine how long/bloody the battle is.

 

[unmerged(6473)]

This is an excellent idea.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

yup very good, do you mean that you can give commands to the arm while it iss doing battle, ex. stand ground, attack, etc.?

 

[Jools]

Originally posted by azid
yup very good, do you mean that you can give commands to the arm while it iss doing battle, ex. stand ground, attack, etc.?

Just overall strategy for an army, I guess.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

The problem is going to be how do you include trench warfare in a game that models other forms of combat as well. Remember Victoria's combat system has to work for the Crimean War, the Civil War, the Boer War, as well as WWI.

 

[Papa Chubby]

Yes, it will be interesting to see how they will model the drastic change in military doctrine through this period. The diminishing role of cavalry and the increasing defensive capabilities of the respective armie's made the situatuation a totally different one than from Napoleon's era.

 

[Jools]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
The problem is going to be how do you include trench warfare in a game that models other forms of combat as well. Remember Victoria's combat system has to work for the Crimean War, the Civil War, the Boer War, as well as WWI.

Well Trench warfare was common back in the ACW although not as common or rather intense... trench warfare should be a technology and be in three levels... It's a doctrine you could choose for your army. Anyway, the wars you mention weren't ideal for trench warfare... The Boer War was vs. smaller colonial armies and partisans, the Civil War had to long of a frontline for the CSA and USA to cover it and the Crimean was simply too far for the brits and french to use this tactic...

 

[Owl]

You're right, trench warfare does need to be modelled. Maybe as you suggest in your later post it's a "doctrine" you can pursue via the tech tree; then if the other side has the same doctrine you can get the "both sides dug in" WW1 scenario.

Once in "dug in" mode, I would like to see armies suffering losses through attrition and ongoing artillery/ sniping/ gas/ air attacks; and every so often you - or the enemy - could choose to mount an assault (perhaps like the EU2 assault system ?) to try to break through. As your losses mount up, you would have to reinforce them or risk having too few men to properly defend the front line - and if you are over-extended the enemy's chances of a successful breakthrough would increase by say 50%....?

 

[unmerged(10435)]

I recall there was someone who advocated a similar idea when HOI was in the same stage of development as Victoria is now. I really liked the sound of the idea then. I thought that you just couldn't simulate WW2 in the same fashion as 16th century wars. HOI proved my fears wrong.

I really don't see the need for this kind of development. The provinces in Victoria are quite small and the EU style system will IMHO work just fine.

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by Wertigo
I recall there was someone who advocated a similar idea when HOI was in the same stage of development as Victoria is now. I really liked the sound of the idea then. I thought that you just couldn't simulate WW2 in the same fashion as 16th century wars. HOI proved my fears wrong.

I really don't see the need for this kind of development. The provinces in Victoria are quite small and the EU style system will IMHO work just fine.

But if you just adapt the EU2 battle system there couldn't be a realistic representation of WW1. The battles will pop up on a separate screen (strictly one at a time) and each will be over in about three game-days. I agree with Jools that we need a way of splitting provinces between two entrenched armies ...

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
The problem is going to be how do you include trench warfare in a game that models other forms of combat as well. Remember Victoria's combat system has to work for the Crimean War, the Civil War, the Boer War, as well as WWI.

Crimean War .. all trench (fortress) warfare

Civil War.. lots of trenches but possible to flank them = mobile trench warfare.

Boer war .. is commonly credited with being why British soldiers in early WW1 knew that trenches had to be man-dee to be any good. Plenty of trenches there, but general scarcity of troops led to much mobility

Finally WW1 was just like the previous wars, but finally both sides had equal industry and infrastructure but more importantly there was more soldiers than room.. no place to maneuver -> attrition trench warfare, horror and death.
WW1 east front had less forces and less equality -> still some mobility

 

[unmerged(10435)]

Originally posted by Owl
But if you just adapt the EU2 battle system there couldn't be a realistic representation of WW1. The battles will pop up on a separate screen (strictly one at a time) and each will be over in about three game-days. I agree with Jools that we need a way of splitting provinces between two entrenched armies ...

I must have made a bad argumentation. With the EU2 battle system I simply meant the basic principle that two armies meet and then fight it out. The winner stands while the loser has to retreat. This basic system was implemented quite succesfully in HOI, which simulates WW2 NOT 16th century warfare.

I agree that WW1 wasn't the same as WW2 or 16th century warfare. I just think that because the provinces are small and because the defenders will get huge bonuses over the attacker in 1914-1918 the in-province warfare won't be needed to simulate trench warfare.

 

[King of Men]

There is supposed to be a distinction between colonial wars and Great Power wars, so maybe there will be one for the system as well.

 

[Tel]

I think the HOI system could be used to simulate trench warfare, though certainly not perfectly. With new techs/ doctrines giving big defensive bonusses to the defender, individual battles could take much longer. If you do not have enough troops to garrison neighboring provinces as well, then you get outflanked and your trenches are useless.

Enhancements to this system would be a major bonus of course.
Certainly there could be additional commands that would add to the realism. For instance having to give your units a command to dig in, giving them a defensive advantage, at the cost of limited mobility.

And perhaps if the defender had too few troops for a province or at certain level of numerical superiority for the attacker then the attacker would be able to outflank the defender within a province to get an attack bonus.

 

[Killerjes]

The bar indicator with a percentage of control over a province could be a good idea.
Maybe research in techs and doctrines could simulate the development in combat styles.
Starting out with a EU2 style system.
Development in trench machinegun and trench warfare slow advances, and combat is now fought with the "control bar system".
Development in tanks speed up attacks again - due to more punch.
Development in planes / zeppeliners / observation ballons gives a chance / bonus to attack. If few forces fight or the province is huge (comapred to the number of DIVs fighting) there is a chance for manouver combat - i.e. trench and machinegun not resulting in a static "control bar system" combat, but instead the battle is an "normal" battle where the loser is dislodged from the province alltogether.
Guerillia warfare doctrine allowing small forces to attack (maybe only a part of) a larger force, disengage, and move on (i.e. choose to fight!). Getting caught by the enemy rarely, subject to size of province, number of regular troops, their doctrines / ability to find/catch the guerilla forces.

With this system one DIV of brits would be swamped by the zulus, even with machineguns and early trenchwarfare, but would stand their ground for at longer period of time in Luxembourgh vs. the Germans.