We need an auto army management function

[highsis]

One reason for the game becoming boring after first few hundred years is that any wars take too much micromanagement as you empire grows.

All wars should take about equal amount of time from the gamer whether it is a small scale war or not. If waging wars and micromanaging an empire takes as much more time as the size of the empire, it inevitably becomes tedious.

I believe most of us, if not all, appreciated auto-rebel hunt function. I think giving armies 'auto-control' function, which gives player's army the same AI that computers have(with a few tweaks of course), will keep the game interesting even after your empire grows big.

Most RTS games have limit to the supply because controlling too many units goes beyond human capability. EU3 doesn't. More you empire grows, more micromanagement is required.

First 100 years of EU3 is my most favorite game of all, but unfortunately next 300 ears are not. I hope we could use less micromanagement in the later stage of the game.

Perhaps you could implant a limited AI that does not use navies...? After all, we already have similar feature = your vassal armie's AI.




ps. what I meant by auto army management function is to give a check box to each army stack whether to give them AI or control them directly.

ps2. it is needed to even enhance tactical feeling. I really can't divide my army to tens of stacks to occupy the enemy's provinces while hunting their main army, as well as my divided armies dodging their doomstack. It's just ridicules amount of work. Computers are capable of instantly responding to the player's movement, which screws all my orders up(because If I pause and issue orders to 10 stacks, the next day computer army changes their course and I have to re-issue different orders to all my stacks, which just goes on forever.)

I will control my main doomstack armies but I really need computer to go around and occupy empty provinces, dodging enemy's doomstack on its own. Please add this function to the game!!!

 

[Marconius]

All wars should take about equal amount of time from the gamer whether it is a small scale war or not.

Uhhh... why? Shouldn't larger wars be more complex and thus require more attention from the player? Why should assaulting an OPM be on the same level of complexity as a war against France?

I think giving armies 'auto-control' function, which gives player's army the same AI that computers have(with a few tweaks of course), will keep the game interesting even after your empire grows big.

Apart from the fact that I'd never trust the AI with my armies, the problem with this is... guiding armies is kinda half the game. You're basically saying you want the computer playing instead of you... why not just go all the way and play a hands-off game then?

Most RTS games have limit to the supply because controlling too many units goes beyond human capability. EU3 doesn't.

EU3 is not an RTS. It has a pause function.

I really can't divide my army to tens of stacks to occupy the enemy's provinces while hunting their main army, as well as my divided armies dodging their doomstack.

Ah yes, I recall when Napoleon, in his infinite tactical genius, narrowly avoided the combined armies of the European powers and just kinda slipped past and took cities that way. I also recall all the little French armies running around and avoiding the enemy 'doomstack', giving us an early example of guerilla warfare in Western history!

Seriously... stop trying to be tricky and just fight the enemy armies. Trying to be clever and constantly dodge enemy forces and then coming to the forums to complain that this takes a lot of effort is not very sporting.

 

[knul]

I wage wars with large armies and I don't feel the need for automation. Probably because I tend to assault forts instead of spreading tiny armies everywhere. Once you are big, you can easily conquer territory quickly by having a couple of 20k infantry armies.

At the end of the campaign most of my armies consist of 20 regiments. Even with very large land forces, that means at most 20 to 30 armies. Quite manageable, especially as you don't have to micromanage each one that much.

 

[TheCheeseMaster]

Completely disagree with you. This is a war game, if we cant control the war, then it isn't.

 

[George LeS]

The only step I'd advocate here would be an aggression/caution check box, which would decide how long an army stays in a fight. I do think we should not have control over that; it's a bit too much MM for my taste, plus it feels like cheating; one more advantage over the AI.

But in general, I don't think you'd get 1% support here for your notion.

 

[unmerged(53215)]

Huge empires being impossible for one person to control is why they eventually fall/split etc.
The late game should be as much about keeping your current nation exisiting as it is to expand it.
To alter this is to change the historical game into a puzzle to be solved.

 

[Generalmotors]

I agree. Totally. As much as it is fun until 1550-1600, is ten times more boring after that. I stopped playing a game I wanted to take till the end, because of the stupid AI declaring 10 wars at me at the time,and after i beat them all, again, an exhausting polka. Not fun repeating same wars 1o times a day, not fun hunting same rebels. I would go even further and say I need a full available AI to take care of the wars I do not want to look after. One can't wage 10 wars at a time. Phisically impossible. More, boring. Maybe I could do it, but for what reason? I could make an exhaustive analysis, but I am tired to do it over and over again. Tell me wat is the fun in fighting the mameluks 10 times, the same way you did it 5 minutes ago , and 15, and 25?

@ Marconius. It does not require effort. It requires to be dumb. Example. If I stay below the infamy limit, it is because I do not want wars with anybody, just for fun. It is ok to be hit by countries I hit before... it is not acceptable to get DOW's from everybody. For handling that, AI would do just fine. Same AI who does that should fix that.

Uhhh... why? Shouldn't larger wars be more complex and thus require more attention from the player? Why should assaulting an OPM be on the same level of complexity as a war against France?

More attention,yes. However, it should be FUN.

Apart from the fact that I'd never trust the AI with my armies, the problem with this is... guiding armies is kinda half the game. You're basically saying you want the computer playing instead of you... why not just go all the way and play a hands-off game then?

The sinews of war are infinite money. I think it is more about the economy than the wars.

EU3 is not an RTS. It has a pause function.

Still, is a game. Should not take the fun away.

Ah yes, I recall when Napoleon, in his infinite tactical genius, narrowly avoided the combined armies of the European powers and just kinda slipped past and took cities that way. I also recall all the little French armies running around and avoiding the enemy 'doomstack', giving us an early example of guerilla warfare in Western history!

Berezina, ring a bell?

Seriously... stop trying to be tricky and just fight the enemy armies. Trying to be clever and constantly dodge enemy forces and then coming to the forums to complain that this takes a lot of effort is not very sporting.

Actually, this is the point. It is a game, it is not work. The reason I quit playing a lot of games it was because they made me feel like I was working. Think about it.

 

[unmerged(100060)]

Big empires are hard to manage because they are so big and tend to fall apart for the same reason. And while it's requires a lot of brain power to run multiple fronts at the same time it's definitely not fun or challenging. If anything the game needs to limit the total number of troops you can control at a given time.

A better setup might be limited the number of troops you can control during a war and have the AI control the rest of the forces once your empire reaches a certain size. Once the war gets going these are the only troops you can control. This will limit the amount of brain power needed to play but still allow you to be creative and decisive. This would also put a hard limit on the size of empires and forcing a player to try to expand with a fraction of the troops. Kind of a like how revolutionary France worked: Napoleon could only be on one front at a time and the fronts he was not went to hell much faster.

You could even it set it up the French fashion: The army of Ejypt (army to invade Ejypt), The army of Italy(troops to defend Italy). Once you pick an army group you're stuck with it the war's over.

 

[Dorevai]

I agree that late-game micromanagement really stresses the fun of the game. As France I enjoy the game the most when I'm just trying to tie something resembling modern France together, uniting the majority of my culture-group under my banner. As the vast colonial wars begin where you need 20 armies and navies of varying strength spread across several dozen small areas of conflict each war becomes a less enjoyable task. Unfortunately there is almost no alternative to war to spend your time. Expansion is endlessly rewarding, and peace is always easier and easier to manage the larger you are, assuming low infamy.



I would like to be able to sponsor some AI control of periphery territories. I doubt the EU3 engine can do that. Essentially I'd create a special type of vassal and lend it expeditionary forces and/or a limited ability to raise its own army. This would let you create joint-stock companies with a life of its own (VOC/EIC) and viceroyalties in large colonial territories.

Re-taking direct control would be a pro/con situation (as would relinquishing it in the first place), and may be very unlikely unless the company/viceroyalty came under extreme stress that they couldn't handle themselves like significant political unrest and native uprisings. Meanwhile each european country's viceroys/companies would get involved with each other in privateering and other economic sabotage that would create low-level conflict and add complexity to colonial diplomacy.

 

[Novalon]

actually we should be able to create non-vassal (acts like a vassal but not a vassal and doesn't change anything about the game except for that area) provincial governments who will handle that.

for example if i conquer all the Spain and Italy, i should be able to create governors for each of those and they should handle provincial issues and i will handle the main wars. they just need to defend or expand to the fullest (maybe i'm missing 1-2 provinces to from full Italy so my Italy governor must handle to that when i dow to Milan)

...

too sleepy.. can't make sense

 

[highsis]

actually we should be able to create non-vassal provincal governments who will handle that.

for example if i conquer all the spain and italy, i should be able to create governors for each of those and they should handle provincal issues and i will handle the main wars. they just need to defend or expand to the fullest (maybe i'm missing 1-2 provinces to from full italy so my italy governor must handle to that when i dow to milan)

...

too sleepy.. can't make sense

I know! You are totally right! I want to play a king of a nation, not god who watchs every signle triffling affair of a nation. People can't seriously think multiple wars in different continents are fun to control. It is just so tedius.

 

[Ruanek]

When I have a large nation with a ton of armies (e.g. Russia) I generally give them certain focuses. I'll make an army for each region near enemies (e.g. Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Caucases) whose purpose is to protect that area. I'll make a few larger armies I keep around the center (in this case around Moscow, probably) which are my invasion armies. Unless the war gets really big, I don't need to pull armies from areas not affected - I let the regional army defend until the main armies get there, then I smash the enemy army.

If you want to conquer Spain and Italy at the same time, it should be more difficult than doing them both separately (which I'd recommend). Really, for the most part wars are as complicated as the player makes them.

 

[highsis]

When I have a large nation with a ton of armies (e.g. Russia) I generally give them certain focuses. I'll make an army for each region near enemies (e.g. Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Caucases) whose purpose is to protect that area. I'll make a few larger armies I keep around the center (in this case around Moscow, probably) which are my invasion armies. Unless the war gets really big, I don't need to pull armies from areas not affected - I let the regional army defend until the main armies get there, then I smash the enemy army.

If you want to conquer Spain and Italy at the same time, it should be more difficult than doing them both separately (which I'd recommend). Really, for the most part wars are as complicated as the player makes them.

How do you manage wars in multiple fronts that cannot be captured in one screen? My major issue is that I donot have dual monitors...

 

[Gixian]

I disagree with the opener/thread title: I really don't need "army auto management" (or dual monitors). Just the pause button is enough.


The last thing I would like to do is to put control of my inferior armies to the computer, so it will let them be killed by the numerically supperior army of my AI opponents. :-/ Or let the AI drag my Siberian armies to Austria to solve war here which will most probably end before they arrive, only to have 5 provinces captured by Ming a year later because no army is anywhere nearby.


If you have problems with managing wars at different places in one time, you just don't pause enough. This really is no RTS. Just check your message settings so that any finished battle or siege stops the game, and clear unimportant trash from the overview window in top right corner (cannot remember how it is called exactly) so you will se all the ongoing battles (both land and naval) and sieges (both friendly and enemy). With this all in place, and a bit of skill, you really don't need to watch all the battlefields with your eyes, at least not every moment or every day.

 

[Novalon]

...The last thing I would like to do is to put control of my inferior armies to the computer, so it will let them be killed by the numerically supperior army of my AI opponents. :-/ Or let the AI drag my Siberian armies to Austria to solve war here which will most probably end before they arrive, only to have 5 provinces captured by Ming a year later because no army is anywhere nearby....

This is not what I think the issue is. As I said you can make an Army in charge of a province or an area and they won't leave there but only keep there safe. That's not hard.

 

[Ruanek]

How do you manage wars in multiple fronts that cannot be captured in one screen? My major issue is that I donot have dual monitors...

You don't need dual monitors. It would probably help to focus on one major enemy at a time (attack one, defend against the rest) if you don't want to pause a lot to shift between fronts. To bring up my Russian example again, Russia can easily use scorched earth effectively to defend until reinforcements get there (though this does, obviously, work for other nations too).

 

[Emperor Hans]

If you want AI control on your side, make vassals.

But the best possible thing would be a HoI3 like system.
You can say give an army a region where it can operate on AI.
Or you could give a single ai multiple stacks, or just let them do whatever they want with it ( give it a 20k unit and it can split it up or combine it any way it likes ).

Though this will most definitely not be integrated anytime soon nor is it moddable or even possible to add by a hex editor.

 

[unmerged(243339)]

What would have been great would be a "spread out" and "form on me" commands. So that when you have defeated an enemy's army you could order your troops to spread out evenly across the nation (to start sieging). Also when you have rebellions in occupied territory you could have a function to make all the troops in the provinces close to the rebellion either to join in the battle or to form in one province.

There is a lot of tedious and routine splitting and joining of armies in situations where you do not need to apply sophisticated tactics but only need to siege a country or squash a rebellion.

Also it would be great to have armies automatically figure out how many units can fit in a navy and then move that number to the navy without first having to split the army. So that for instance you want to move 20k across the english channel, you could simply move the army from dover to calais and the computer would automatically move the units in groups using the navy.

Of course all automation features should be possible to cancel for the die-hard micromanagers out there

 

[Junuxx]

eu3 is not an rts. It has a pause function.

Huh

It is a RTS/TBS hybrid, but that has nothing to do with the presence of a pause function (which virtually all RTS games have anyway).

 

[Orinsul]

EU3 isnt a war-game, war is a very small part of it.
and for a great many of us, war is the most tedious and dull part of the game.
And this is a discussion that comes up constantly on all paradox game forums, there was a topic about it in regards to Victoria II just the other day.

surely the simplest option would be an individual option for each army to automate it by ticking a box, HoI is a war game and so its wars are complicated. then those of us that dont care about it could be rid of the annoyance and get on with running the country and focusing on whats fun, and those who like military aspect would have the option of not using it.
No-one is suggesting that the whole military ought be always automated except maybe of the lord of cheeses in the fourth post. But having the option now and then to pass a unit over the AI until you want it back would be a godsend.