Vic2 Battle Style is good enough for late wars?

[fizy45]

I know that Victoria is a game based on ecomomics but wars always plays important role in the human history and it should be same for this game too...

As you all know Victoria 2 battle system is like EU3 you give order to attack and your troops begin to move.When they reach enemy province battle starts aganist the enemy troops on that province.

Its oke for the wars at 1836 to 1900 but later on the wars began to chance to a trench warfare so here is my questions...

For 1900 and later wouldt it be good to chance the style of HOI battle system I mean battles starts immdetely when you attack not wait for units to reach province.I dont know can developers put both mechanics in the game but it will be good if they can.I said this cause I loved 1914 mod for HOI2 and battle mechanics of trench warfare is worked quite well on HOI battle system.

Also how will the trenches added in to game ?

 

[Nitjanirasu]

Trench warfare is mid-game tactics, actually, from about 1860. After 1910 it was rather useless (as so gloriously exemplified in World War 1), and the entire concept was largely abandoned after 1920.

 

[Rhion]

In Vic1, trenches were represented, imho, by an army's dug-in factor. Steadily increased by technology, by the mid to late 1800's, this made a dug-in army (that had kept on in tech) on the defensive a match for armies several times its size. This made breaking an enemies defensive line a costly affaire in both lives and time.
You could also build forts who by the late game got the name of trenches, but I've always thought the dug-in factor was a much better representation.

Now, what you're proposing in terms of battle-mechanics seems rather impossible. It would mean the game would not only, at some point, have to completely chance the gameplay from EU to HoI. It also means that there would actually have to be different mechanics for different parts of the world map. Trench warfare was a harsh reality in Europe, but this style of warfare wasn't suddenly adopted all over the world.

 

[FOARP]

I personally prefer move=attack for its immediacy, and the fact that it does not leave the province from which you launch the attack undefended. The front-to-front fighting of WW1 is not well simulated using the move-and-fight system, but it is okay for wars like the Franco-Prussian.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

The main problem with the battle system is that your enemies are going to know where you are to attack, and thus shift troops accordingly. However, this was often the case in WWI as well, given the week-long bombardments preceeding a battle and the immense stockpiling of men and munitions before that. It's only in the 1920-ties or such that the system loses its connection with military reality.

 

[gadajs]

The thing about trench warfare was that it only applied for a very short period of time to a very specific place, i.e the western front in WW1. There was no trench fighting on the eastern front because of the size of the front compared to the number of combatants.

 

[Orinsul]

um, there was trench fighting everywhere, the eastern front was just worse. alot of austrians died in the trenches against the russians. and if trenches were used in flanders and gallipoli then they can be used everywhere.
those two places have nothing in common but high command.
now that i come to think about it there are even trenches in my city, they never got used for fighting as well, no bad guys ever got here but there are trenches, heaps of them.

and i think the dug-in represents trenches just fine. id just like artillery to increase attrition in neighbouring enemy provinces or something with a late game technology.

 

[fizy45]

I personally prefer move=attack for its immediacy, and the fact that it does not leave the province from which you launch the attack undefended. The front-to-front fighting of WW1 is not well simulated using the move-and-fight system, but it is okay for wars like the Franco-Prussian.

Yea I agree and said it before its good for Franco - Pruissan war but for ww1 its not...

The thing about trench warfare was that it only applied for a very short period of time to a very specific place, i.e the western front in WW1. There was no trench fighting on the eastern front because of the size of the front compared to the number of combatants.

Trenchwarfare used everywhere western and eastern fronts also in every battle of Ottoman Empire.Its even used after Greatwar for example Turkish independence so trenches are important.

Also at ww2 Britan and French thought that ww2 can be same as ww1 so they are prepeared to trenchwarfare too...

 

[unmerged(3921)]

Even in the late stages of the ACW there were engagements that could be described as trench warfare. Not as long running as seen in WW1 of course. But the OP's observation about move = attack vs. move to attack is an interesting one. My feeling is that the more dense (with units) the enivronment, the more the former treatment works better.

 

[Raptor1]

The thing about trench warfare was that it only applied for a very short period of time to a very specific place, i.e the western front in WW1. There was no trench fighting on the eastern front because of the size of the front compared to the number of combatants.

Only in WWI on the Western Front? What about the ACW (At Vicksburg and, most famously, Petersburg), Franco-Prussian War (To some extent, due to French defensive doctrine), Second Boer War, Russo-Japanese War, WWI on the Italian Front and the Gallipoli campaign...?

There was trench warfare on the Eastern Front, as well as most other fronts, but it wasn't static to the same extent that the Western and Italian Fronts were because of the lack of force concentration.

As it is, IMO Victoria's system with dug-in modifiers and movement before attack fits the whole era pretty well on average, especially when one considers it's not a wargame.

 

[loki100]

Only in WWI on the Western Front? What about the ACW (At Vicksburg and, most famously, Petersburg), Franco-Prussian War (To some extent, due to French defensive doctrine), Second Boer War, Russo-Japanese War, WWI on the Italian Front and the Gallipoli campaign...?

There was trench warfare on the Eastern Front, as well as most other fronts, but it wasn't static to the same extent that the Western and Italian Fronts were because of the lack of force concentration.

As it is, IMO Victoria's system with dug-in modifiers and movement before attack fits the whole era pretty well on average, especially when one considers it's not a wargame.

were because of the lack of force concentration, is absolutely key. No one in 1914 sought, or expected, long term trench warfare. It happened in part as neither side could win early, but more fundamentally due to the sheer number of troops involved and relative slowness of the armies. So move & fight is fine as a simulation. The only reason you'll get bogged down is if neither side has the immediate power to break the other and the relatively limited front precludes movement.

Any of the wars from mid-1850s on had the capacity to become trench warfare, the difference was that until 1914-18, for the most part, no one had enough troops to bring movement to a shuddering halt. So the same basic game system is fine up to the point were mechanisation becomes the dominant dynamic in warfare.