Victoria 3 | Monthly Update #6 | December

[unmerged(760025)]

For one sending more men to the front is more involved than in previous titles. There is a rippling economic cost that has never existed before. Coupled with a time delay this heightens the strategic choice here. Too early and you've harmed your economy unnecessarily, too late and you may have to send even more, or worse lose.

This is of course not the only strategic choice. Choice of which generals, when to push and when to hold, what to use your navy for (including possibly opening a second front), the composition of your armies, where exactly in your nation they are being drawn from) outside diplomacy and trade (eg securing a new trade route for raw materials, violating neutrality for a surprise front etc.)

You are making the assumption that by saying sending more men to the front I meant mobilizing your civilian population, I wasn't, I was thinking of sending another of your standing armies so there wouldn't be any economic cost except for the soldiers that will come back as dependents, admittedly a nice bit a flavour for your post-war situation but nothing more.
Not to mention that the ability to mobilize your population was something you could also do in Victoria 2 and there was a clear economic cost to it so it's untrue to say that it "has never existed before", sure Victoria 3 seems to focus even more on "the cost of war" but that hardly makes war more strategic in itself.

And I'm aware of all this options and I maintain that they make for a rather lackluster warfare system, but to come back to my comment it was : what can you do if you or more precisely if your AI control generals start losing on the front except from sending more men into the meatgrinder ? What kind of strategic options do the player have ? None of what you listed answer that concern, you are completely off topic :
- chosing a new general ? Is that even possible now that your armies are raised ?
- when to push or when to hold ? Since you are on the defensive, I'm going to assume that your armies on the front are on holding and frankly I find amusing that someone is trying to use the overly simplistic system of "advance" and "hold" as an argument in favour of how strategic warfare is in the game when it's clearly an argument against it
- using the navy ? Why wouldn't you have been using it in the first place especially since navies are always active ?
- changing your army composition ? Is it even possible to do now that your armies are raised ? And even if it is, that's pretty circumstantial
- using diplomacy and trade ? I don't see how diplomacy will help since you are already at war and a nation apparently can't join a war outside of the diplomatic play phase. I guess trade could help if your armies are losing because they are lacking certain military goods but why would you have waited until after the war started and you start losing to take care of it ? That would be pretty foolish, not to mention your armies could be losing for other reasons than lack of supplies

Saying this over and over doesn't make it any less wrong.

Seriously, if people are going to continue whining about the war system, they could at least come up with something new that hasn't been debunked a dozen times already.

I don't remember you ever "debunking" any of my arguments, most of the time you just tried to change the subject and when called on it you stopped answering.

 

[The Goldfinch]

This lengthy... piece of text...that probably was meant to be funny was written in response to some imaginary arguments, not even worth a serious response.

?

I see some more people got triggered so let me sum up this discussion to clarify some things up:
I, Goldfinch and others generally LIKED new screens because it looks like there will be some form of encirclement. Goldfinch said that if just they add choosing offensive targets (as devs said they probably will) it will be great. Someone disagreed in a civil manner. Civil discussion started. Then some people arrived, complaining about whining and spamming and basically saying you mustn't under no circumstances criticize warfare. Some people (me included) found this amusing.

Let me say something that will perhaps allow those triggered people to sit down and relax a bit.

WHAT YOU THINK ANYONE TALKING ABOUT WARFARE WANTS:

"2nd and 3rd division will cross the Dnestr river, occupy Zakharivka and Znamianka and then move south towards Odessa to meet forces of XI army corps landing in Fontanka to attack Odessa from 3 directions, using three artillery batalions. Meanwhile, on the Caucasus front... "

WHAT PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT STRATEGICAL WARFARE REALLY WANT:

"Okay, wargoal is russian Azerbaijan but I want to first take major city of Odessa to hurt russian economy. Then I want to land invasion force in Azov with goal of taking Astrakhan to cut off russian southern supply."

WHAT YOU APPEAR TO WANT:

"Strategy time! Hmmm, advance or defend?"

I hope this helps

There seem to be two complementary kinds of people:
->those trying to picture every sort of discussion about warfare as ABSOLUTE MACRO VS ABSOLUTE MICRO
->those who then complain that every discussion about warfare is ABSOLUTE MACRO VS ABSOLUTE MICRO

I mean, I am quite content with current system, just looking for fun ways to expand it. Maybe I should write this in every comment about warfare I post to prevent the flood of frustrating, repetitive comments

 

[Al-Khalidi]

There seem to be two complementary kinds of people:
->those trying to picture every sort of discussion about warfare as ABSOLUTE MACRO VS ABSOLUTE MICRO
->those who then complain that every discussion about warfare is ABSOLUTE MACRO VS ABSOLUTE MICRO

I mean, I am quite content with current system, just looking for fun ways to expand it. Maybe I should write this in every comment about warfare I post to protect myself from trollish responses

Yes, right next to the formula: "I hereby declare that I'm aware that the game is not finished yet. "

 

[unmerged(760025)]

Jesus Christ, biggest strawman I have seen yet in this discussion. Who the hell wants absolute control over armies? Me and him were simply advocating for some sort of battleplans, or ad hoc strategic objectives for armies - given that encirclements seem to be possible, would be super cool if player could Impact it somehow

I don't want to break your dreams about encirclements but there is a possible theory that would explain what we saw on the screenshot.
We know that generals are handle by the game on a strategic region level, so when I look at the screenshot and read over the encirclement "Rhine basin HQ" it is possible that it is where general(s) attached to this specific strategic region that the AI decided for one reason or the other not to send to the front where stationed while they were on the "standy" order. And since we know that the "advance front" order make armies try to occupy territories while avoiding direct confrontation with the enemy as much as possible, then it's possible that when that order was given to the prussian generals they simply went around the HQ to avoid battle.
Admittingly the fact that the trapped french army is on the "advance the front" order does contradict this theory but it's possible that the french army was on "standby" when it was encircled and only changed its stance after the encirclement happened.
I hope I'm wrong and that there is some warfare mechanic allowing the player to encircle an army they were fighting against but for now I can't simply dismissed the possibility that it's the result of the fact that generals are handled by the game at a strategic region level.

 

[The Goldfinch]

I don't want to break your dreams about encirclements but there is a possible theory that would explain what we saw on the screenshot.
We know that generals are handle by the game on a strategic region level, so when I look at the screenshot and read over the encirclement "Rhine basin HQ" it is possible that it is where general(s) attached to this specific strategic region that the AI decided for one reason or the other not to send to the front where stationed while they were on the "standy" order. And since we know that the "advance front" order make armies try to occupy territories while avoiding direct confrontation with the enemy as much as possible, then it's possible that when that order was given to the prussian generals they simply went around the HQ to avoid battle.
Admittingly the fact that the trapped french army is on the "advance the front" order does contradict this theory but it's possible that the french army was on "standby" when it was encircled and only changed its stance after the encirclement happened.
I hope I'm wrong and that there is some warfare mechanic allowing the player to encircle an army they were fighting against but for now I can't simply dismissed the possibility that it's the result of the fact that generals are handled by the game at a strategic region level.

That would be disappointing, but well, its highly likely that you are right, thats a very probable explanation. I was optimistic since on Franco Prussian front things like Metz happened so I thought this can't be coincidence, that they are showing something similar.

 

[GrafKeks]

This lengthy... piece of text...that probably was meant to be funny was written in response to some imaginary arguments, not even worth a serious response.

Yet you took the time as you felt attacked, which wasn't my intention. I also tried to copy your story-style and very obviously your argumentation style ( less agressive however ).

I want to to excuse myself for being offensive even if accidental though.

This is such a tempting scenario, so fun and realistic

Passive agressiveness isn't a good argumentation style. See the quote above as well.

Jesus Christ, biggest strawman I have seen yet in this discussion. Who the hell wants absolute control over armies? Me and him were simply advocating for some sort of battleplans, or ad hoc strategic objectives for armies - given that encirclements seem to be possible, would be super cool if player could Impact it somehow

Sure, because in reality the state had no possibilities to influence military actions in any way.

Is this not a strawman? Is Attack and Defend not a type of influence on military action?

I am actually in favour of battleplans as I like pre-planning, I was simply trying to divert attention to the tone and argumentation style of the post.

I, Goldfinch and others generally LIKED new screens because it looks like there will be some form of encirclement. Goldfinch said that if just they add choosing offensive targets (as devs said they probably will) it will be great. Someone disagreed in a civil manner. Civil discussion started. Then some people arrived, complaining about whining and spamming and basically saying you mustn't under no circumstances criticize warfare. Some people (me included) found this amusing.

Did someone specifically say, that you mustn't criticize warfare. This is a genuine question, and I am not sure which side started being insulting even if indirectly, yours was the first I read that was aggressive, most of the argument posts will be deleted as they are non-constructive arguments in bad faith.

Let me say something that will perhaps allow those triggered people to sit down and relax a bit.

WHAT YOU THINK ANYONE TALKING ABOUT WARFARE WANTS:

"2nd and 3rd division will cross the Dnestr river, occupy Zakharivka and Znamianka and then move south towards Odessa to meet forces of XI army corps landing in Fontanka to attack Odessa from 3 directions, using three artillery batalions. Meanwhile, on the Caucasus front... "

WHAT PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT STRATEGICAL WARFARE REALLY WANT:

"Okay, wargoal is russian Azerbaijan but I want to first take major city of Odessa to hurt russian economy. Then I want to land invasion force in Azov with goal of taking Astrakhan to cut off russian southern supply."

WHAT YOU APPEAR TO WANT:

"Strategy time! Hmmm, advance or defend?"

I hope this helps

This lengthy... piece of text...that probably was meant to be funny was written in response to some imaginary arguments, not even worth a serious response.

On-Topic: As I think a military DLC will be necessary anyway ( given that the main focus should be politics and economics ), I'd be rather happy if simple ( or even complex ) battleplans were added before release though, even if they simply increase the chance for the front to attack/defend/capture in a way according to the battleplan.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Yet you took the time as you felt attacked, which wasn't my intention. I also tried to copy your story-style and very obviously your argumentation style ( less agressive however ).

I want to to excuse myself for being offensive even if accidental though.

Passive agressiveness isn't a good argumentation style. See the quote above as well.



Sure, because in reality the state had no possibilities to influence military actions in any way.

Is this not a strawman? Is Attack and Defend not a type of influence on military action?

I am actually in favour of battleplans as I like pre-planning, I was simply trying to divert attention to the tone and argumentation style of the post.




Did someone specifically say, that you mustn't criticize warfare. This is a genuine question, and I am not sure which side started being insulting even if indirectly, yours was the first I read that was aggressive, most of the argument posts will be deleted as they are non-constructive arguments in bad faith.




On-Topic: As I think a military DLC will be necessary anyway ( given that the main focus should be politics and economics ), I'd be rather happy if simple ( or even complex ) battleplans were added before release though, even if they simply increase the chance for the front to attack/defend/capture in a way according to the battleplan.

Well, this answer wasn't offensive to me, it was irrelevant as you indeed made a huge strawman about something I didn't say, that's why I said it's not worth responding.
My argument wasn't a strawman as it was a response to someone who expressed a hope that we won't be able to choose targets for offensives and I responded to this exact situation.
As to your next question - yes, there are some users who with hilarious stubborness answer to any feedback about warfare with "you can't criticize it because it's game design", one such user, @wilcoxchar if you want exact name, again jumped at another user giving feedback with similar "tactic" - just calling that statement "whining" and claiming falsely that it was "debunked" (It wasn't). This is a part of pure and rather pathetic attempt to keep silencing users dissatisfied with new warfare. I have no idea why they do it. Others, me included, and most notably @Muezzinzade joined to criticize such approach and not to keep arguing about warfare.
I don't hate the new warfare and honestly don't intend to keep arguing about it.
But I strongly disagree with silencing and insulting users who are more dissatisfied than me. And it appears that it's not just me.

 

[cac579]

Not what you claimed. You said the encirclement we saw was only visual.

France was fighting against both Spain and Prussia at the same time, but based on the numbers (18 French troops encircled in the Rhine HQ, 16 on the frontline against the Prussians, 25 in the North France HQ, 53 in the South France HQ for a total of 112 Battalions vs the Prussians 146) combined with the 2:1 French: Prussian losses* we can see, it seems the instead what happened is that the Prussians won a couple of decisive battles and broke the French front line. The French AI then pulled most of the troops back to garrison.

Regardless, neither your interpretation of how this happened nor my interpretation supports your contention that the encirclement we see is mostly visual and not strategic.

*Not all of the French losses would be due to the Prussians, but given the much lower casualty rate of the Spanish we can safely conclude that most of them wer

it does because its all automated by the ai. We have ZERO impact on encirclements. If the prussians set the attack order and france sets the defend order then it just gets automated after. Encirclements are just flavor to show stuff happening. It would be no different if u lost 20 battalions to encirclements or through battle losses.

What would cause you to not get encircled? rng as one of the devs mentioned in a reply

All other things being equal and taken as an average, intuitively I'd say the odds of a 60 / 40 Front should work out to about 70 / 30 with this system.

With a traditional system where all troops in a stack are involved in every battle, there can still be a number of variables that smooth out the squared effect of numeric advantage (like combat width, for example) but what it comes down to is usually the dice in that first battle. If the first battle favors the underdog, the post-battle numbers might be 40 / 35 and at this point all bets are off. But if the first battle favors the advantaged side, it might be 55 / 20 and then the rest is just a given.

The other aspect of relevance is that our peace system doesn't necessarily require a front to be "won or lost" - it can sometimes be enough to have made only a partial incursion to force a peace deal, without wiping out the other country's whole army. So even if your 60 / 40 has been reduced to only 30 / 20 and not the big win you hoped for, if you've made gains in the process that might be enough to get what you want. More on peace in a few weeks.

The front system is basically an enlarged battle where rng will matter a lot. Instead of rng per battle its rng per front which in my mind would make war even more rng.

 

[Spartakusbund]

it does because its all automated by the ai. We have ZERO impact on encirclements. If the prussians set the attack order and france sets the defend order then it just gets automated after. Encirclements are just flavor to show stuff happening. It would be no different if u lost 20 battalions to encirclements or through battle losses.

What would cause you to not get encircled? rng as one of the devs mentioned in a reply


The front system is basically an enlarged battle where rng will matter a lot. Instead of rng per battle its rng per front which in my mind would make war even more rng.

It's not just flavor! Those 18 battalions are now cut off and lack supply. They will not be able to join other battalions in contesting the Prussian advance. Actually killing those 18 battalions in battle would have meant that the Prussians would have lost many more men themselves.

Yes, the Prussian player did not have to make two or three right clicks to effect the encirclement as he would have had to do in Vicky 2. That doesn’t mean that the player’s choices had nothing to do with the encirclement. Having a better military and having an ally on the other side of France in the war are both a huge part of why the Rhine HQ got encircled. Having a more efficient mobilization system also probably played a role, though we can’t directly infer that from the screenshots as far as I can see.

Also that quote does not at all establish what you claim it establishes. Please actually read it.

Ultimately, your original claim (encirclements are mainly visual and have no actual mechanical impact) is totally unsupported. Please withdraw it or do something to actually substantiate it.

 

[cac579]

It's not just flavor! Those 18 battalions are now cut off and lack supply. They will not be able to join other battalions in contesting the Prussian advance. Actually killing those 18 battalions in battle would have meant that the Prussians would have lost many more men themselves.

Yes, the Prussian player did not have to make two or three right clicks to effect the encirclement as he would have had to do in Vicky 2. That doesn’t mean that the player’s choices had nothing to do with the encirclement. Having a better military and having an ally on the other side of France in the war are both a huge part of why the Rhine HQ got encircled. Having a more efficient mobilization system also probably played a role, though we can’t directly infer that from the screenshots as far as I can see.

Also that quote does not at all establish what you claim it establishes. Please actually read it.

Ultimately, your original claim (encirclements are mainly visual and have no actual mechanical impact) is totally unsupported. Please withdraw it or do something to actually substantiate it.

I said encirclements are more visual than strategic because you don't have any control over encirclements AND It would be no different if u lost 20 battalions to encirclements or through battle losses.

The quote shows that the front is going to be down to rng (similiar to battles in Vicky/eu4) that you can influence . Encirclements are just flavor on the front [logical conclusion].

Maybe actually read the quote and understand it. You forgot the second part.

"All other things being equal and taken as an average, intuitively I'd say the odds of a 60 / 40 Front should work out to about 70 / 30 with this system."

what do u think the 70/30 means.

for the 60 bat:
70% win 30% lost . How does that happen? rng/rolls other wise 60/40 front will be always 100% win assuming offense and defense stats are equal.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Sure, because in reality the state had no possibilities to influence military actions in any way. General: "Let's advance to Georgia instead of russian capital Moscow, it's warmer there". Entire government together with Emperor: " But please mister general, Moscow is more important, we beg you to consider going there". General: "Heh. No." This is such a tempting scenario, so fun and realistic

I have no quarrel with the government telling the generals which overall goals they are to reach for. What i strongly disagree with is the idea of the player drawing lines on the map and dictating where to create envelopments, which is what I was originally responding to.

 

[Hammrtime]

These arguments are funny, because for the most part we are not all that far apart. Most agree the micro of previous PDX games is to much, and most agree the attack/defend should have a bit more depth to it. So what are we arguing about? Whether you should be able to draw battleplans?

Overall we are all still making lots of assumptions about how war will work. Conceptually we can understand, but that can be much different then in reality. It is certainly ok for people to express their opinion, and for people to disagree and provide a counter point. Once the finished product is out, some people maybe surprised, others maybe disappointed. We will have to see.

I cannot fault anyone for not enjoying the direction war is going in this game. It is also funny that in a game that was explicitly declared from the outset that it was not going to be a wargame, has so much controversy over how wars are fought. Makes me wonder if this is about more that battleplans.

 

[Spartakusbund]

I said encirclements are more visual than strategic because you don't have any control over encirclements

Not true, as I outlined. You are in control of the factors that lead to encirclements, even if you don't right click to create them yourself. Even if you were correct, that doesn't mean encirclements are only visual.

AND It would be no different if u lost 20 battalions to encirclements or through battle losses.

No, that is also wrong as I have already explained. Actually killing those 20 battalions in battle would mean that Prussia would in turn lose more men.

The quote shows that the front is going to be down to rng (similiar to battles in Vicky/eu4) that you can influence. Encirclements are just flavor on the front [logical conclusion].

Maybe actually read the quote and understand it. You forgot the second part.

"All other things being equal and taken as an average, intuitively I'd say the odds of a 60 / 40 Front should work out to about 70 / 30 with this system."

what do u think the 70/30 means.

for the 60 bat:
70% win 30% lost . How does that happen? rng/rolls other wise 60/40 front will be always 100% win assuming offense and defense stats are equal.

The point of that post was that superior numbers is less of an overwhelming factor than in the previous system because death stacking is not a thing.

I don't want to break your dreams about encirclements but there is a possible theory that would explain what we saw on the screenshot.
We know that generals are handle by the game on a strategic region level, so when I look at the screenshot and read over the encirclement "Rhine basin HQ" it is possible that it is where general(s) attached to this specific strategic region that the AI decided for one reason or the other not to send to the front where stationed while they were on the "standy" order. And since we know that the "advance front" order make armies try to occupy territories while avoiding direct confrontation with the enemy as much as possible, then it's possible that when that order was given to the prussian generals they simply went around the HQ to avoid battle.
Admittingly the fact that the trapped french army is on the "advance the front" order does contradict this theory but it's possible that the french army was on "standby" when it was encircled and only changed its stance after the encirclement happened.
I hope I'm wrong and that there is some warfare mechanic allowing the player to encircle an army they were fighting against but for now I can't simply dismissed the possibility that it's the result of the fact that generals are handled by the game at a strategic region level.

I'd say its much more likely that the French armies had not fully mobilized when the Prussians started invading.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

I'd say its much more likely that the French armies had not fully mobilized when the Prussians started invading.

I'm not denying that it's possible but what make you think that it's much more likely ? I don't see anything on the screenshots to support one theory over another, did I miss something ?
Or is it because you think that it would be more historically accurate since the french mobilization system was inferior to the german one ? If that's the case, I would have to disagree, because while the french mobilization system was inefficient compare to the german one, none of the two decisive encirclements during the franco-prussian war had anything to do with an army being caught of guard while it was mobilizing.
The army of the rhine, encircled inside Metz was in this situation because it was defeated in battle and had to retreat to Metz, same for the army of chalons that was encircled at Sedan.

 

[Spartakusbund]

I'm not denying that it's possible but what make you think that it's much more likely ? I don't see anything on the screenshots to support one theory over another, did I miss something ?
Or is it because you think that it would be more historically accurate since the french mobilization system was inferior to the german one ? If that's the case, I would have to disagree, because while the french mobilization system was inefficient compare to the german one, none of the two decisive encirclements during the franco-prussian war had anything to do with an army being caught of guard while it was mobilizing.
The army of the rhine, encircled inside Metz was in this situation because it was defeated in battle and had to retreat to Metz, same for the army of chalons that was encircled at Sedan.

It was defeated in battle in large part because the Prussians outnumbered the French forces on the border, 500,000 to 300,000, even though the French army on paper was much larger. Additionally, the French armies were highly disorganized, not at full strength, and badly undersupplied, again due to French inefficiencies in mobilization.

This is why the French army was broken and encircled in history, and is likely a big part of the reason why it was broken and encircled in these screenshots (compounded by the fact that France was also fighting Spain)

 

[unmerged(760025)]

It was defeated in battle in large part because the Prussians outnumbered the French forces on the border, 500,000 to 300,000, even though the French army on paper was much larger. Additionally, the French armies were highly disorganized, not at full strength, and badly undersupplied, again do to French inefficiencies in mobilization.

This is why the French army was broken and encircled in history, and is likely a big part of the reason why it was broken and encircled in these screenshots (compounded by the fact that France was also fighting Spain)

These are still two very different situations.
On one hand you have an army that went to battle, was defeated and ended up retreating to a fortified position where it was besieged.
On the other hand you have an army that never went into battle because it was still mobilizing and was taken by surprise by a faster opponent that managed to encircled them before they were ready.

 

[Spartakusbund]

These are still two very different situations.
On one hand you have an army that went to battle, was defeated and ended up retreating to a fortified position where it was besieged.
On the other hand you have an army that never went into battle because it was still mobilizing and was taken by surprise by a faster opponent that managed to encircled them before they were ready.

No, look at the map. Battles did take place on the Franco-Prussian front. Some forces had mobilized. What I’m arguing is that not all of them had.

But let’s interrogate your proposed chain of events a little more. Granted, there’s a lot we still don’t know about the war system. But if the French forces had fully mobilized, why would they only set their armies to attack AFTER they were surrounded? That seems like incredibly bad planning.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

No, look at the map. Battles did take place on the Franco-Prussian front. Some forces had mobilized. What I’m arguing is that not all of them had.

And what make you think that these battles were fought by the army that got encircled ? There is a battle happening on the screenshot, near the frontline. And for this specific battle, the second screenshot showing us the war between France and Prussia clearly indicates that the battle is not fought by the encircled army but by two others.

But let’s interrogate your proposed chain of events a little more. Granted, there’s a lot we still don’t know about the war system. But if the French forces had fully mobilized, why would they only set their armies to attack AFTER they were surrounded? That seems like incredibly bad planning.

I wasn't talking about all the french armies that were mobilized by the AI, I was talking about the one specific army that got encircled. You are making the strange assumption that because this army wasn't sent to the front with an attack order then it means no other army was.

I'm starting to get confused about what your original point was supposed to be. I was presenting a theory as to how the french army we saw on the screenshot got encircled, saying it could have been an army on standby staying inside the HQ and that got encircled before it could get assigned a new order. You didn't agree because for you it was because this army wasn't fully mobilized yet. I assumed that by that you meant that this specific army was still in the HQ gathering men when the prussian armies invaded and therefore never went to the front because it wasn't ready in time but now I'm not too sure that it was what you were trying to say so can you explain precisely what you meant when you said that this army was encircled because it wasn't fully mobilized ?

 

[killaghost12]

And what make you think that these battles were fought by the army that got encircled ? There is a battle happening on the screenshot, near the frontline. And for this specific battle, the second screenshot showing us the war between France and Prussia clearly indicates that the battle is not fought by the encircled army but by two others.



I wasn't talking about all the french armies that were mobilized by the AI, I was talking about the one specific army that got encircled. You are making the strange assumption that because this army wasn't sent to the front with an attack order then it means no other army was.

I'm starting to get confused about what your original point was supposed to be. I was presenting a theory as to how the french army we saw on the screenshot got encircled, saying it could have been an army on standby staying inside the HQ and that got encircled before it could get assigned a new order. You didn't agree because for you it was because this army wasn't fully mobilized yet. I assumed that by that you meant that this specific army was still in the HQ gathering men when the prussian armies invaded and therefore never went to the front because it wasn't ready in time but now I'm not too sure that it was what you were trying to say so can you explain precisely what you meant when you said that this army was encircled because it wasn't fully mobilized ?

From an outsider, I have kinda lost track what you two are trying to say but I think what Spartakus is trying to say is that when Prussia invaded when the French army (in its entirety) had yet to be mobilised. It looks like the Rhine Basin HQ was mobilised and did fight the Prussians, hence why there is the graphics showing a battle had been fought just south of Strasbourg. Only after the breakthrough did the French army come in force and we see a series of battles in and around Dijon. Spartakus is saying the French were unable to place sufficient enough forces on the border at the outbreak of war, which led to this situation.

I think this little confusion is about the meaning of 'The French Army' (the entire French army) and 'The French Army' (the encircled French army) god English is a horrible language.

Admittedly I haven't got a clue what this little quibble is about - it seems you two keep talking past each other.

 

[Spartakusbund]

And what make you think that these battles were fought by the army that got encircled ? There is a battle happening on the screenshot, near the frontline. And for this specific battle, the second screenshot showing us the war between France and Prussia clearly indicates that the battle is not fought by the encircled army but by two others.

I’m referring to the battles that are already completed. There’s one right next to where the Rhine HQ is encircled.

I wasn't talking about all the french armies that were mobilized by the AI, I was talking about the one specific army that got encircled. You are making the strange assumption that because this army wasn't sent to the front with an attack order then it means no other army was.

I am talking about that as well: the battalions in the Rhine HQ. If I understand you right, you’re arguing the AI had those on standby, the Prussians encircled it, and then the AI set it to attack.

That makes no sense to me. When it’s useful, the AI does not use it. Now that it’s been surrounded and will take penalties combat, the AI throws it into battle to die.

Instead what I am saying is that those individual battalions, the 15 of them now encircled, had not yet mobilized when the Prussians attacked. At this point they have, so the AI is ordering them to attempt a breakout. This may or may not be correct (that’s why I originally said “more likely”), but it makes a lot more sense to me.

god English is a horrible language.

English is a beautiful pidgin language how dare you