We need an auto army management function

[Orinsul]

I just took a break from playing EU3 to play Command Ops: Battle of the Bulge from over at Matrix Games, and I gotta say, the thing that blew me away about them was situationally aware, autonomous AI. You would issue orders to just your subordinates, then they would issue their own orders to achieve their objectives. If they run into obstacles, they would adapt and adjust, either committing reserves to the assault, bypassing, or staying put depending upon their strength levels.

So I got a thought for this in EU3, adapting this approach.

Whenever you appoint a general to an army, you dictate its theatre of action, and its goal. Defend these regions or take those regions. From there, you no longer have control of that army until you decide to unappoint the general. That army is then under AI control for that designated theatre, and that autonomous general can split up, assault, or defend as he decides.

And just to make it interesting... he should also have a loyalty rating. So that should he succeed in taking that region, he may up and decide to secede from your country.

Otherwise, the only armies you can have direct control over, either have no general, or are lead by your leader. Thus creating a situation similar to Rome in the 3rd century, where the emperor always had to keep the largest army around to keep from defecting to successful generals.

After all, general loyalty was a persistant problem in those (as well as these) days.

Suitable compromise for army management?

it wouldnt need to be that complicated, just a simple tick box for AI control of that unit would do. rather than adding in whole mechanics and systems and what have you. And tieing generals into AI control would merely serve to limit and disadvantage and deeply annoy the player. If we wanted to be annoyed, automation wouldnt even be being discussed, its because we dont want to be annoyed by armies that this is asked for.
your compromise seems a much more extremist position than anyone else's.
just a simple on/off switch, as alot of games have. SMAC is a good example as it was terrible but atleast it was there, it was damned annoying as the AI wasnt very good leading to most things ending up in useless places, but it was less annoying than having to bother with units.
It doesnt have to be complicated, it doesnt have to have immersion reasoning, it doesnt even need to be good, it just needs to be there!

 

[DanubianCossak]

I agree 100% with first post. There is no reason why we shouldnt have the option to give armies to AI, those who prefer to do everything manually dont have to use this (altho im pretty certain they will as well).

And if EU3 is not a RTS just because it has a pause option, then there are no RTS games at all, since in every single game pretty much created to this day you can always pause game one way or another - either using pause button or by bringing main menu.

 

[6354201]

And just to make it interesting... he should also have a loyalty rating. So that should he succeed in taking that region, he may up and decide to secede from your country.

Otherwise, the only armies you can have direct control over, either have no general, or are lead by your leader. Thus creating a situation similar to Rome in the 3rd century, where the emperor always had to keep the largest army around to keep from defecting to successful generals.

After all, general loyalty was a persistant problem in those (as well as these) days.

This would be too extreme for the EU time period. A general defecting or not being loyal happened, but on the level of Rome in antiquity that would necessitate a game mechanic for it.

 

[poloport]

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

Something like the viceroys that existed in real life?

 

[unmerged(18418)]

I just took a break from playing EU3 to play Command Ops: Battle of the Bulge from over at Matrix Games, and I gotta say, the thing that blew me away about them was situationally aware, autonomous AI. You would issue orders to just your subordinates, then they would issue their own orders to achieve their objectives. If they run into obstacles, they would adapt and adjust, either committing reserves to the assault, bypassing, or staying put depending upon their strength levels.

So I got a thought for this in EU3, adapting this approach.

Whenever you appoint a general to an army, you dictate its theatre of action, and its goal. Defend these regions or take those regions. From there, you no longer have control of that army until you decide to unappoint the general. That army is then under AI control for that designated theatre, and that autonomous general can split up, assault, or defend as he decides.

And just to make it interesting... he should also have a loyalty rating. So that should he succeed in taking that region, he may up and decide to secede from your country.

Otherwise, the only armies you can have direct control over, either have no general, or are lead by your leader. Thus creating a situation similar to Rome in the 3rd century, where the emperor always had to keep the largest army around to keep from defecting to successful generals.

After all, general loyalty was a persistant problem in those (as well as these) days.

Suitable compromise for army management?

This actually makes a lot of sense. It's a grand strategy game and you're the ruler of the country. You don't need to also be all the generals AND all the admirals AND the minister of the interior etc etc. Takes out a lot of the micromanagement and makes the late game far less tedious.

By the way, a large empire should face historically accurate difficulties, not tedious game mechanics.

 

[unmerged(18418)]

I agree 100% with first post. There is no reason why we shouldnt have the option to give armies to AI, those who prefer to do everything manually dont have to use this (altho im pretty certain they will as well).

And if EU3 is not a RTS just because it has a pause option, then there are no RTS games at all, since in every single game pretty much created to this day you can always pause game one way or another - either using pause button or by bringing main menu.

EU3 is a grand strategy game, not a RTS game. Yes, it is in real time, so you can dwell on semantics and say it is RTS. But RTS is a specific genre of game in which you play almost exclusively against another human. It's not historical, it's not about thoughtful planning (although some planning is required), and it's not played on a map of earth. It's a "real time" game in the sense that, although you can technically pause the game, you generally do not. When you do pause it, it is only to actually leave the game for a bathroom break or whatever. You don't pause and issue orders and commands to the game. The game is played at a very fast pace--click speed, measured in actions per minute (apm) is a big factor in skill at RTS. Some successful RTS games include Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2.

EU3 is an awesome game. It's my favorite game of all time. But I don't understand why people feel the need to put it into a genre it doesn't belong to.

 

[John Forseti]

I don't see how some kind of theatre system and option AI control could be a bad thing. Doubt we'll see it without a new expansion or sequal though.

 

[highsis]

I don't see how some kind of theatre system and option AI control could be a bad thing. Doubt we'll see it without a new expansion or sequal though.

It won't be a bad thing if it is properly implanted. But we all know, by the sesne of besiness, Paradox won't be adding something that drastically changes the gameplay without an expansion. But a tick box for AI on/off for each stack? I would say it's much more probable than the whole theatre of battle system.

 

[DanubianCossak]

EU3 is a grand strategy game, not a RTS game. Yes, it is in real time, so you can dwell on semantics and say it is RTS. But RTS is a specific genre of game in which you play almost exclusively against another human. It's not historical, it's not about thoughtful planning (although some planning is required), and it's not played on a map of earth. It's a "real time" game in the sense that, although you can technically pause the game, you generally do not. When you do pause it, it is only to actually leave the game for a bathroom break or whatever. You don't pause and issue orders and commands to the game. The game is played at a very fast pace--click speed, measured in actions per minute (apm) is a big factor in skill at RTS. Some successful RTS games include Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2.

EU3 is an awesome game. It's my favorite game of all time. But I don't understand why people feel the need to put it into a genre it doesn't belong to.

IMO youre trying to re-invent the wheel. If calling stuff what they are makes me "dwell on semantics", then i happily do so. Grand strategy can be a sub-genre of RTS, i dont have a problem with that, but still, EU3 is first and foremost RTS.

I have to admit this is the first time i hear that RTS is a game that you "play almost exclusively against another human" - ive played Age of Empires 2 for YEARS in single player skirmish mode, so by your definition, AoE2 is not a RTS, while to me its like a perfect example of what RTS game is. Sure, star craft and star craft 2 are huge MP sensations in some countries, but still what made star craft was its campaign and story, to my knowledge SC was not designed as primarily multiplayer game, it more or less developed later, but i could be wrong here.

Lets go on: "It's not historical" - well, after you pick a date, load game and start playing, EU3 is essentially not a historical game, as the outcome of every game is based on a number of random and semi random events/decisions/war outcomes etc.

"it's not about thoughtful planning" - im sorry what? Are you saying that i dont think about strategy and different approaches when i play EU3, cuz thats exactly what any player who wants to survive does. The fact that you get to learn certain AI patterns after a while, and thus need to invest much less of your brain power in every following game, doesnt mean that you dont have to think or plan, actually its quite contrary, specially when you play some small nations like Irish minors, Byzies etc. You go on saying "although some planning is required", id say planning and thinking is not just something you need to do, its actually ALL you need to do in order to be capable of playing any game, not just EU3, and not just real time strategies.

"and it's not played on a map of earth" - again i dont quite understand it. If a game is Real Time and Strategy, what difference does it make where its played? It could happen on Earth, Mars, Aiur or any other place, strategy is strategy, it does not need a specific frame work, it adapts to different circumstances. (which is basically what it is in essence)

Speaking of pausing game, different people like to do things in different ways. Just because you or i do not pause game in SC when we need to think, it doesnt mean some people dont - the possibility is still there. Specially so when you play single player (which SC also has), you have no game or social limitations preventing you from stopping game time and thinking about whatever you need to think. Its the same thing with pausing and issuing orders in EU3: the option is there, but there is no game or social limitation that forces you to do things either way, its a matter of personal preference. When i play EU3 i have everything set on auto-pause, and i do issue orders on pause most of the time, but i have a friend who likes to run game on speed 3 without ever pausing game, and another one who plays on speed 5 also without pausing (altho his skills in EU3 are not that great ill admit).

"The game is played at a very fast pace--click speed, measured in actions per minute (apm) is a big factor in skill at RTS" - as i already said, this can be the definition of every RTS game, including EU3: if you prefer to play EU3 on fastest speed without pausing, sure, game will be very intense and fast pasted, but you can always pause it or slow it down if you need to think. In multi player, on the other hand there are different rules i suppose, but that goes for all games, not only RTS, and these rules are generally something that people agree to.

 

[Garak]

But RTS is a specific genre of game in which you play almost exclusively against another human.

Almost exclusively? All RTS games have single player mode for a reason, you know.


As to the idea of rebellious generals, I don't think that's realistic for the time period. Individuals being disloyal, yes, but generals starting civil wars and such a la ancient Rome? I can't think of an instance of that happening during the scope of the game.

 

[unmerged(18418)]

IMO youre trying to re-invent the wheel. If calling stuff what they are makes me "dwell on semantics", then i happily do so. Grand strategy can be a sub-genre of RTS, i dont have a problem with that, but still, EU3 is first and foremost RTS.

I have to admit this is the first time i hear that RTS is a game that you "play almost exclusively against another human" - ive played Age of Empires 2 for YEARS in single player skirmish mode, so by your definition, AoE2 is not a RTS, while to me its like a perfect example of what RTS game is. Sure, star craft and star craft 2 are huge MP sensations in some countries, but still what made star craft was its campaign and story, to my knowledge SC was not designed as primarily multiplayer game, it more or less developed later, but i could be wrong here.

Lets go on: "It's not historical" - well, after you pick a date, load game and start playing, EU3 is essentially not a historical game, as the outcome of every game is based on a number of random and semi random events/decisions/war outcomes etc.

"it's not about thoughtful planning" - im sorry what? Are you saying that i dont think about strategy and different approaches when i play EU3, cuz thats exactly what any player who wants to survive does. The fact that you get to learn certain AI patterns after a while, and thus need to invest much less of your brain power in every following game, doesnt mean that you dont have to think or plan, actually its quite contrary, specially when you play some small nations like Irish minors, Byzies etc. You go on saying "although some planning is required", id say planning and thinking is not just something you need to do, its actually ALL you need to do in order to be capable of playing any game, not just EU3, and not just real time strategies.

"and it's not played on a map of earth" - again i dont quite understand it. If a game is Real Time and Strategy, what difference does it make where its played? It could happen on Earth, Mars, Aiur or any other place, strategy is strategy, it does not need a specific frame work, it adapts to different circumstances. (which is basically what it is in essence)

Speaking of pausing game, different people like to do things in different ways. Just because you or i do not pause game in SC when we need to think, it doesnt mean some people dont - the possibility is still there. Specially so when you play single player (which SC also has), you have no game or social limitations preventing you from stopping game time and thinking about whatever you need to think. Its the same thing with pausing and issuing orders in EU3: the option is there, but there is no game or social limitation that forces you to do things either way, its a matter of personal preference. When i play EU3 i have everything set on auto-pause, and i do issue orders on pause most of the time, but i have a friend who likes to run game on speed 3 without ever pausing game, and another one who plays on speed 5 also without pausing (altho his skills in EU3 are not that great ill admit).

"The game is played at a very fast pace--click speed, measured in actions per minute (apm) is a big factor in skill at RTS" - as i already said, this can be the definition of every RTS game, including EU3: if you prefer to play EU3 on fastest speed without pausing, sure, game will be very intense and fast pasted, but you can always pause it or slow it down if you need to think. In multi player, on the other hand there are different rules i suppose, but that goes for all games, not only RTS, and these rules are generally something that people agree to.

You're making the mistake of parsing the words. RTS, whatever the words may mean in everyday English, has come to describe a particular genre of games. What you're doing is akin to, say, claiming Barrack Obama is a Republican (note the uppercase 'R') because he believes in a republican form of government. Or that the People's Republic of China is a republic.

A game can be a strategy game and it can be in real time, and it could still not be a RTS because RTS has come to signify a particular kind of game, regardless of what the words originally meant.

Actually, it's sort of ironic because RTS aren't actually strategy games. They're more like real time tactics games. But again, that's just the term that has come to describe them.

Also, you got confused at one point and said that I claimed EU3 doesn't require thoughtful planning. I claimed the exact opposite -- that RTS doesn't require thoughtful planning because it's not actually a strategy game per se as EU3 is.

 

[Generalmotors]

I claimed the exact opposite -- that RTS doesn't require thoughtful planning because it's not actually a strategy game per se as EU3 is.

You are wrong. Let's look at Age of empires. If you play AOE2 on very hard difficulty, with 7 enemies, you have to plan EVERY move, because if not you're dead. I never finished a game like that anyway. There are imposible. I guess nobody really cares about that anyway.

 

[Werther]

4. Any strategy games employ less micromanagement in sequels.

.... this is why i dont play to this games.

 

[themrwho]

a simple AI Control=ON/OFF button makes sense. << shouldn't take too much of development time, although I do acknowledge if you include the 'test' phase, any (simple) modification is a big modification!

a more in-depth feature with viceroys, strategic goals (again could be as simple as 'guard mode' or 'aggressive/expand mode' etc.) would be even better, but would take considerably longer to implement AND properly test, so it probably is just wishful thinking.

As has been pointed out before, in one of the latest Romance of the Three Kingdoms game, you have this viceroy-kinda feature and I quite liked it. The generals have their own stats so you choose them accordingly - for your region just next to France, you may prefer a high Military skill, while Americas may need one with better Administration skills.

I like the liberal approach of "don't use it if you don't like it" sayers, I think I would use this feature, because I too have reached the point where being the only super power it becomes boring to manage small armies. Just as a single reference point - having 5k income, while the 2nd nation only has 2k. At that point, even a 60k stack becomes a 'small army' in the great scheme of things, because now player has 3 continents to manage and doesn't really care about any AI army. Even if the next 3-4 nations unite against MrHuman and launch a coordinated attack!

[Well of course if human opponents did that in multiplayer, that would hurt, but with the current AI it is neither possible nor terrifying, so I just simply don't want to combine three to five '20k parked brigades' into a doomstack and kill cute AI armies]. That same cute AI armies were terrifying 200 years ago, and I would have enjoyed playing Napoleon to use smart n efficient tactics to stop, tackle & kill them, but now why should I even bother, it's easier to use inefficient massive armies and replace if they get killed...

This is the point where I want a viceroy to just do the job, even if it costs me 400% more, at the end of the game extra money goes for waste anyway

 

[unmerged(173313)]

On a similar note, I think the hunt rebels button should have a certain range. I don't like that my army in Choctaw starts marching up to Swampy Cree because I tried to get it to hunt rebels in it's area.

 

[dosdemayo]

On a similar note, I think the hunt rebels button should have a certain range. I don't like that my army in Choctaw starts marching up to Swampy Cree because I tried to get it to hunt rebels in it's area.

I agree. Also let me add:

I'm not sure if this Auto-AI is the answer... but the general point is on the mark. When I have an army of 200K soldiers and it's peacetime and a 6K rebel-army pops up one province over from where I have 40K well-trained, highly capable (high tech) soldiers, there is really no strategy in pausing the game and sending the 40K army to the province. It's unneeded micro-management that adds little to the game, and for players like me it lessens the enjoyability. Even when a dozen 6K-armies rise up in this scenario, there is never... never... never a time when all the rebellions aren't put down.

The common response to this scenario is: "It's supposed to be hard to manage, it's a large country, etc." I'm not sure people really see the fundamental point when they respond this way, so let me try offering another perspective... *even if it's not a perfect analogy. Every month a certain amount of money is placed into research, stability, or minting. This is done... automatically ... and with the help of sliders. The research sliders are a huge help in managing your empire without losing the ability to control your empire's economy. Instead of having to make decisions each month about where to put your money or how much to mint, etc, you set your sliders and you go with them. If you fail, economically, it was your fault, it was your bad strategy... but certainly you were glad you didn't need to allocate funds yourself each and every month that money came in.

Not the same, but EU would be well-served by incorporating some way of managing rebellions and perhaps even wars as the game continues... Without this, perhaps it really is a game best played 1400-1600.

 

[Ratlegion]

The Romance XI idea is terrible. That viceroy system was completely broken. It didn't matter how much you built up your country, the computer would throw it all away. It was sad enough you couldn't play the entire game yourself, but it was even worse you had to depend on broken mechanics that worked to hold you back.

 

[highsis]

The Romance XI idea is terrible. That viceroy system was completely broken. It didn't matter how much you built up your country, the computer would throw it all away. It was sad enough you couldn't play the entire game yourself, but it was even worse you had to depend on broken mechanics that worked to hold you back.

it's not the viceroy system that is broken in ROTK XI, but the AI itself. Koei always suffered from weak AIs, and the viceroy system is just adopting the AI that computer opponents employ. If we have viceroy system in EU3, it will work just like having interchangable vassals without getting worried about cores.

 

[Ratlegion]

Actually, no. People always try to argue that Pan Zhang wouldn't have the leadership of Cao Cao, but the fact of the matter is a ruler, no matter what their state would be a beast under AI control, but you conquer them and make them a viceroy, they are awful. That's why everyone would gang up on me and say that Koei is concentrating on realism, that OF COURSE the enemy would work so much harder for itself when it was a ruler, rather than your servant. I disagree. The computer merely sucks on purpose. It is just like getting a character in RPGs that were state of the badass art who get nerfed as soon as they are on your side.

 

[themrwho]

I don't think it was 'unusable' bad, it simply worked with some viceroys, and it was funny with some others; they were all AI anyway, the bottom line is it was not worse than other factions, so it makes sense.

Nevertheless, what I am seconding is, what has been said above - we could have a viceroy system, it makes sense, it's doable, it'll make things easier for players who want an abstraction layer (this wish may or may not be due to 'vast empire' size).