What New Features Would You Like In Combat

[truth is life]

Which countries are you talking about? The world was up to its collective eyeballs in a world-wide depression and still recovering from the influenza pandemic and WWI. It was the mid-30's before Germany began any significant study of any real revolutionary armored tactics, and I believe Britain and possibly France were piddling around with very small-scale armored units. The USA didn't even have tanks at all. Japan began their incursions into the Asian mainland with only a handful of tanks so poorly made that rifle shells could cause scaling where armor flakes and broken bolts would bounce around inside. It was all theoretical whazzats and whazzits instead of large-scale operations. Even by 1940 and 41 the UK was still trying to use tanks as primarily infantry-support and recon.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to pooh-pooh on your idea. I just don't think your claim of large-scale air and armored units in the 20's and early 30's is a valid one. The hardware was certainly possible, but historically it wasn't built. And if it had been built, then the military thinking of the time just didn't quite know what to do with it, at least not until the Germans started looking into it after 1936. The whole reason for the success of Blitzkreig was that nobody else had tried it, thought about it, or played around with it until the Germans sprung it on them. During the first couple of years, the inadequacies of the German tanks and tactics were hidden and ignored by their early successes. By the time the Allies caught up in hardware and tactics in 42-43, the Axis production just simply couldn't keep up any more, negating any technological advantages they still had. Heck, all the countries still had battleship vs. carrier camps in their navies all the way through 1941.

That is partially true. As fair as air units are concerned, just the existence of the RAF and Armee de l'Air should be enough to justify independent air units And according to When Titans Clashed the USSR was building armored divisions in all but name by the early '30s. Of course, they weren't very good, but they were still divisional armored forces. And as you note there were definitely thinkers like Fuller, de Gaulle, Guderian, and many others who advocated large pure-mobile formations. As there's no guarantee that there will be a Depression in game, it should be possible for at least the richer and better developed states to field a few armored divisions, and maybe even an armored corps or two, by the end of the game. And the very doctrinal and technological difficulties that led to the rarity of large mobile and air forces in the interwar military are why I said that there ought to be specific doctrinal techs that need to be researched before these things are unlocked (along with the relevant basic production techs, obviously)

Now, while I'm not unwilling to see research unlock early WWII technology and inventions, I also am not real keen on seeing Vicky II become a tech rush game where the winner is the one to get tank divisions and all metal monoplanes squadrons before anyone else. It's just not what I'm looking for in this game. This is definitely the one area of historical reality that I really wish to retain. Victoria should leads us right up to the very edge of 1936.

I certainly don't want that either, but there should be at least some element of tech rush in the game. Often, IRL, the first to get some technological advantage were able to exploit that to gain victory. Of course, often they weren't, so overall technological advancement and your economic and doctrinal strength should play a substantial role in military affairs. And economic strength should be a lead determiner of overall strength, no question at all.

Now, if we can somehow design the tech tree so that it's possible to edge into late 30's technology in one area, but have to sacrifice technology in the other areas, thus helping to penalize the super-specialization needed to get over the edge. THAT I can go for, in a limited way. You can research advanced light tanks by 1930 if you really work at it, but your economic research suffers so much because if it you can't afford to ever build them. That sort of thing.

But Victoria is so much more than a war game. Emphasizing military research and technology just really takes away the feel of the game.

In my opinion.

Oh, and I agree completely. This could probably be modeled similarly to the HoI 3 tech tree, which has techs continuing out forever...but they keep getting more and more time-consuming to research the farther ahead you go. Sure, you might be able to get 1950 tank guns...but you might have to give up 1946 aircraft. Or worse. And I certainly want economics to play a more important role in the game than the military. But this thread is the military suggestions thread.

 

[unmerged(56465)]

Now, while I'm not unwilling to see research unlock early WWII technology and inventions, I also am not real keen on seeing Vicky II become a tech rush game where the winner is the one to get tank divisions and all metal monoplanes squadrons before anyone else. It's just not what I'm looking for in this game. This is definitely the one area of historical reality that I really wish to retain. Victoria should leads us right up to the very edge of 1936.

There should be some disparity though, I think, because as it is every great power hits the tech ceiling and is exactly equal most of the game.

 

[Grosshaus]

It would be excellent to get a purpose to ships with some mechanisms like pirate control and overseas trade incomes in EU3. In Victoria 1 I don't think I ever built a ship.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

I'm not sure if in Vicky 1 building (or losing) big ships was directly linked with prestige, but it would be nice touch to have that (on the top of improved naval combat system).

Navies in XIX century, especially in its second half, were "trendy" and often a measure of country standing among the great powers of the world.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Those who say that a complete overhaul of the combat system is hardly appropriate are right, since after all, this is Victoria, not Hearts of Iron. A game with an entirely other focus. However, to use that as an argument to keep the current system as-is or nearly-as-is is fallacious. The system of V1 is not a holy grail of "simple and good enough" combat system, it is merely one way of fulfilling that goal.

The key is finding a system with a high quality-complexity ratio. The most goodness (realism, simulationism and strategic depth) for the least amount of complexity.

Meaning that, treating V1 as the baseline, worthy additions would be ones that would add a significant amount of goodness for only a slight or no net change in complexity. I'll take a jab at one of the main ideas laid forth in this thread with that in mind.

Supply.

A game of 19th to early 20th century Imperialism is definitely amiss without any kind of consideration for supply. In the era, armies ballooned in size while weapon rates of fire increased geometrically, causing enormous supply needs in absolute terms. Basing logistics on living off the land became increasingly unfeasible, while technological advances like railroads made large-scale supply transportation increasingly feasible.

Modeling supply would not need to be any more complicated than "Does this army have an open supply line? Yes or no?". A supply line would be no more complicated than an unbroken line of provinces to your homeland, capable of crossing a sea from port to port as long as neither is blockaded. If a supply line would exist, no problem. If it does not, decreased combat efficiency, increased attrition and inability to reinforce would follow. Flat modifiers would be simplest. One step up in complexity would be modifiers that would grow over time the longer the unit is out of supply. I'd be in favour of that; after all, calculating modifiers is something the game would do in the background, it wouldn't make the player's troop management or decision-making any more difficult or cumbersome.

Realistically, railroads were very much the arteries along which supplies were transported in the era, but I'd rather not touch that, for I can't really think of any sensible way to do it which would be less complex than HoI3 supply, which is definitely too much for Victoria. Therefore, I'd settle for a simple "In supply or not?" and "How long have you been out of supply?" system.

Is this a realistic solution?

 

[Cinéad IV]

Therefore, I'd settle for a simple "In supply or not?" and "How long have you been out of supply?" system.

Is this a realistic solution?

This sounds pretty good to me. It would certainly give armies an incentive not to move rapidly into inhospitable terrain (we've all seen 50,000 man French armies marching up and down the Congo). With regards to colonisation, it would force players to assert some degree of coastal control before moving soldiers to the interior of the area they intend to colonise.

 

[lizardo]

My Battle wish list:
-------
Set a date when everyone should arrive at the party. Have a list of scheduled battles that I can send out invitations to. Actually getting there on time could depend upon leadership and circumstances. If a slower unit is invited there will be a choice to shift the date or allow them to arrive later.

If you only do one thing do this.

--------
Assign consumables to military units. And lines of supply. A ground unit should require food, ammunition and replacement arms, fuel. If they run out of fuel and move they leave their brigade. No food, they eat their horses.
--------
Attrition. Unreliable units should suffer desertions (pops return home) or deaths (pops die) but rarely entire units revolting. In fact RGOs and Factories should suffer attrition too. Work is dangerous.
--------
Detachable, strategically movable brigades.
-------
Land artillery that can shoot at ships. Forts especially should have artillery.
-------
Limited vision and real fog of war. You shouldn't be able to see into the next land or sea province let alone know the composition of forces there. Not without air units. Or spies. Things should be dark. Illumination should be a privilege.
-------
Land based air brigades should be able to attack ships.
-------
EU climate effects on combat and movement. Don't need HoI hour by hour stuff, but General Winter is really effective.
-------
Strategic movement by rail, at rail speed. Not magic trains that move faster because horsies are on-board. Can be done like HoI except that the units disembark early on the rout if the target province is blocked or occupied.
-------
HQ's that act like HQs in HoI.
-------
No more strategic movement by ships across the world by magic.
-------
Ships that have to be build in shipyards. Understandable rules of repair. Self repair of ships at sea (yes, they could and did)
-------
Air brigades that fight like air units, whether land or sea based.
-------
Independent Air units.
-------
Less judgmental leader traits.
-------
Leaders that can be given orders (access to AI routines), such as suppress rebellions in a given area. Leaders that can decide that it's better to run away than lose the whole division.
-------
Unit organization settings (min/max) by unit. I should be able to set where thing should be, not all the time manually refresh every unit.
-------
Upgrades that are paid for.
-------
Leadership points garnered by a formula related to culture, literacy and elite populations, not a specific officer population. Set up a military unit to use a percentage of labor and clerks just like an RGO or factory. This percentage could vary by many factors, and getting it wrong would affect unit performance. Some cultures would use aristocrats along with or instead of clerks.

Leaders should get experience in combat skills. Separately. Like x points in general leadership, mountaineering, assault, etc..

Leaders should only retire in peace time.
------
Collateral damage. With the improvement of artillery and aerial bombing civilian facilities and populations begin to suffer more the direct effects of battle. A battle in a province is a disaster for what ever is there. This means that there needs to be a provision for repair of damage to what ever level remains. For example a level 6 factory repairable or permanent damage. Dropping its upper limit it has to be rebuilt rather than repaired.
-------------------------------------------
Germany and the Soviet Union collaborated extensively in the 30's. I'm not sure the full extent of it but it certainly included tank tactics and technical details.

The cause of the Great Depression was an over capacity in America of manufacturing because of WWI. As Europe repaired from the Great War the American capacity became redundant. Bad economics but really really convenient when war broke out again.
---------
More partisans. Anyone foolish enough to try to conquer China without the troops to be left behind in every province is, well, foolish. In fact if partisans or revolutionaries are given the opportunity they should combine and acquire leaders eventually becoming a real menace. But, as mentioned above, it should be possible to have units that can be given access to the AI 'whack-a-mole' routines to deal with that rather than bog down the player.

 

[unmerged(181726)]

No. This isn't HOI, and most of the above suggestions sound like a nightmare if you are also trying to run an economy. More depth != more micro.

 

[FOARP]

My Battle wish list:
-------
Set a date when everyone should arrive at the party. Have a list of scheduled battles that I can send out invitations to. Actually getting there on time could depend upon leadership and circumstances. If a slower unit is invited there will be a choice to shift the date or allow them to arrive later.

If you only do one thing do this.

--------

Move = attack is a much better solution.

Assign consumables to military units. And lines of supply. A ground unit should require food, ammunition and replacement arms, fuel. If they run out of fuel and move they leave their brigade. No food, they eat their horses.
--------

Agreed. Units should no be cut off from their bases of supply without suffering consequences.

Attrition. Unreliable units should suffer desertions (pops return home) or deaths (pops die) but rarely entire units revolting. In fact RGOs and Factories should suffer attrition too. Work is dangerous.
--------

Unreliable pops suffering desertions can more easily be modelled on the recruitment side. Factories suffering attrition is very minor.

Detachable, strategically movable brigades.
-------

Extra micro?

Land artillery that can shoot at ships. Forts especially should have artillery.
-------

Only if the ships are engaged in supporting amphibious landings, otherwise you can defeat navies using your army.

Limited vision and real fog of war. You shouldn't be able to see into the next land or sea province let alone know the composition of forces there. Not without air units. Or spies. Things should be dark. Illumination should be a privilege.
-------

You should have some idea due to scouting, but I agree that the information, even about neighbouring provinces, should not be complete.

Land based air brigades should be able to attack ships.
-------

Absolutely, late in the game this should definitely be possible.

EU climate effects on combat and movement. Don't need HoI hour by hour stuff, but General Winter is really effective.
-------

Fully agree.

Strategic movement by rail, at rail speed. Not magic trains that move faster because horsies are on-board. Can be done like HoI except that the units disembark early on the rout if the target province is blocked or occupied.
-------

Yes, agreed.

HQ's that act like HQs in HoI.
-------

I've only played HOI 1 and 2, but yes, HQs should be separate units which add effects.

No more strategic movement by ships across the world by magic.
-------

Absolutely.

Ships that have to be build in shipyards. Understandable rules of repair. Self repair of ships at sea (yes, they could and did)
-------

Yes.

Air brigades that fight like air units, whether land or sea based.
-------

Yes.

Independent Air units.
-------
Less judgmental leader traits.
-------
Leaders that can be given orders (access to AI routines), such as suppress rebellions in a given area. Leaders that can decide that it's better to run away than lose the whole division.
-------
Unit organization settings (min/max) by unit. I should be able to set where thing should be, not all the time manually refresh every unit.
-------
Upgrades that are paid for.
-------
Leadership points garnered by a formula related to culture, literacy and elite populations, not a specific officer population. Set up a military unit to use a percentage of labor and clerks just like an RGO or factory. This percentage could vary by many factors, and getting it wrong would affect unit performance. Some cultures would use aristocrats along with or instead of clerks.

Leaders should get experience in combat skills. Separately. Like x points in general leadership, mountaineering, assault, etc..

Leaders should only retire in peace time.
------
Collateral damage. With the improvement of artillery and aerial bombing civilian facilities and populations begin to suffer more the direct effects of battle. A battle in a province is a disaster for what ever is there. This means that there needs to be a provision for repair of damage to what ever level remains. For example a level 6 factory repairable or permanent damage. Dropping its upper limit it has to be rebuilt rather than repaired.
-------------------------------------------

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Germany and the Soviet Union collaborated extensively in the 30's. I'm not sure the full extent of it but it certainly included tank tactics and technical details.

The cause of the Great Depression was an over capacity in America of manufacturing because of WWI. As Europe repaired from the Great War the American capacity became redundant. Bad economics but really really convenient when war broke out again.
---------

Not sure I get your point.

More partisans. Anyone foolish enough to try to conquer China without the troops to be left behind in every province is, well, foolish. In fact if partisans or revolutionaries are given the opportunity they should combine and acquire leaders eventually becoming a real menace. But, as mentioned above, it should be possible to have units that can be given access to the AI 'whack-a-mole' routines to deal with that rather than bog down the player.

No, absolutely not. The excessive number of partisans in Vicky 1 was simply a nightmare. Yes, I know that they made it like that to make conquest more difficult so as to prevent 'blobbing', but it made the game a total chore, and AI is not a real solution. My suggestion is to make rebellion meaningful. You should know why they are rebelling, and you should be able to stop it happening through your own actions, although if you use military force your units should suffer attrition - but shouldn't go through the rigmarole of continual 1-division battles in which the enemy is always beaten.

 

[takedown47]

unit types such as Napoleonic square, Infantry 1901 etc similar to EU3. choice extends to cavalry and artillery types. techs might provide boost to those unit values.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

No. This isn't HOI, and most of the above suggestions sound like a nightmare if you are also trying to run an economy. More depth != more micro.

I dont agree with all the suggestions but they are not that bad. What is the alternative? Keep to a flawed Vicky 1 style?...because this game 'isnt about war'...?

I had more than enough time to manage my 1st place economy and run a major war in vicky1. And besides all most people are asking for is a combat system that is representative of the combat of the period. I hear a lot of nonsense about this game being about economics and not war but you only have to look at the period to see that warfare is a huge aspect and therefore the vicky2 combat system should be represented as such.

And are you telling me that you prefered the vicky system of attaching fighter/bomber brigades to infantry over something else?!?!

 

[unmerged(71032)]

I dont agree with all the suggestions but they are not that bad. What is the alternative? Keep to a flawed Vicky 1 style?...because this game 'isnt about war'...?

I would say getting as much extra warfare stuff that won't break the gameplay (especially AI, but also game performance) is what most of the people have in mind - they just are not too eager to say it loud.

Always remember HoI3 case.

 

[FOARP]

I dont agree with all the suggestions but they are not that bad. What is the alternative? Keep to a flawed Vicky 1 style?...because this game 'isnt about war'...?

I had more than enough time to manage my 1st place economy and run a major war in vicky1. And besides all most people are asking for is a combat system that is representative of the combat of the period. I hear a lot of nonsense about this game being about economics and not war but you only have to look at the period to see that warfare is a huge aspect and therefore the vicky2 combat system should be represented as such.

And are you telling me that you prefered the vicky system of attaching fighter/bomber brigades to infantry over something else?!?!

Absolutely. I really don't understand why people make the argument that Vicky "isn't HOI" so you shouldn't touch the combat system. HOI2 had a combat system which works well, Paradox made HOI2, we are familiar with HOI2 and know its combat system to be a good one not requiring any more micromanagement than the Vicky 1 system. Why then is it wrong to ask to incorporate elements (but not the entirety) of that system into Vicky 2 whilst keeping a 19th century flavour?

I would say getting as much extra warfare stuff that won't break the gameplay (especially AI, but also game performance) is what most of the people have in mind - they just are not too eager to say it loud.

Always remember HoI3 case.

The gameplay in Vicky 1 was broken. Each game you played, whatever intentions you started with, descended into a rigmarole of micro-management and insane declarations of war. When people suggest that certain elements of the combat system from HOI2 (but not the entirety) are incorporated into Vicky 2, then are asking for a system that doesn't really work to be replaced with one which does.

 

[unmerged(36774)]

No. This isn't HOI, and most of the above suggestions sound like a nightmare if you are also trying to run an economy. More depth != more micro.

Although there will not be that much work with economy now, because computer will handle promotion of pops and factory construction. So perhaps there could be more detailed combat system.

Peace time will be boring because you can't build your economy and industry yourself, so it is going to be more a war game anyway. I hope that I am wrong with this though.

 

[unmerged(181726)]

Absolutely. I really don't understand why people make the argument that Vicky "isn't HOI" so you shouldn't touch the combat system. HOI2 had a combat system which works well, Paradox made HOI2, we are familiar with HOI2 and know its combat system to be a good one not requiring any more micromanagement than the Vicky 1 system. Why then is it wrong to ask to incorporate elements (but not the entirety) of that system into Vicky 2 whilst keeping a 19th century flavour?

This isn't my objection: I don't think that anyone is saying don't change anything about the combat system. Things like a basic supply system, or better handling of mobilization (eg by including partial mobilization, or building cadre divisions), or strategic redeployment by rail, or naval blockades, would all be welcome additions to the game IMO. I wouldn't object to move-as-attack either (but the current system better represents the early part of the game until the 1870s at least).

What I object to, are people wishing to introduce a system of aerial combat that will only be used for the last 10 years of the game, requiring new division types, unit missions, air combat etc. Or suggesting punitive attrition to your RGOs/Factories from combat, or moving to a brigade-based combat system, or replacing perfectly functional officer pops with an abstracted HOI3-style leadership formula, or severely limited vision, or divisional artillery being able to strike ships etc. These things belong in a war-game, like HOI, but not in a political/economic game, like vicky.

The fundamental difference the way I see it, is that the first class of things adds a lot of interesting decisions to the game through small changes (i.e. you must now consider supply, or rail infrastructure when making invasion plans, or must pre-plan your mobilization, or must choose total vs. partial). The second class adds little depth but requires large new subsystems in the name of "realism."

This is not a war game, which does not mean that you should just have generic divisions and generic ships. It means that the military focus of the game should be much more "big picture" than HOI's. This means less focus on unit composition (maybe like VIC1 system, plus 1-2 additional brigade types), or on unit upgrades, or officers, or intelligence operations, and a greater focus on the broad strategic aspects of warfare, namely questions of supply, blockade, mobilization and deployment. I believe that this is both better game-play for Victoria and more faithful to the period of the game.

Although there will not be that much work with economy now, because computer will handle promotion of pops and factory construction. So perhaps there could be more detailed combat system.

Peace time will be boring because you can't build your economy and industry yourself, so it is going to be more a war game anyway. I hope that I am wrong with this though.

You might be right, but we don't know this yet. We know that we wont be microing pops (thank god), but for all we know the game could include fairly involved political/diplomatic/financial management that will keep you occupied in peace-time. In fact, I would expect that with 50 pop issues and a bicameral legislature with coalitions, that politics will consume a lot more time than it did in VIC1.

 

[byzantium43]

Brigade sized units

 

[unmerged(63310)]

The wars in this period were often not based on economics at all but it is difficult to justify a war not based on economic considerations for most people in the current time.

Wars of prestige or dominance did have after effects economically but often not enough to cover the costs or especially the risks.

The more I consider this period it seems to me there should be obligations that come with power- IE if you have 1st rank economy then there are certain spheres of influence you gain or powers but you also then get the responsibility to protect those rights or lose prestige.

Otherwise every game devolves into a war game where the best way to expand economically is to be a great war machine gobbling up land. If a great power is forced to defend its sphere or influence or its allies/aligned powers then it doesn't spend as much time looking to expand itself militarily and war becomes a little less important economically.

Vicky 1 tried to make war less important by limiting gains to 3 non-core provinces per war but a concentrated campaign of limited conquest could still dramatically effect the economics at small risk for the player. It makes more sense that at a certain point- ok you took Bulgaria and made it #3 power in the world- now as a great power you have a sphere of influence to regulate and protect as well responsibility to stand up for allies and aligned powers or lose prestige or even increase militancy of your citizens for not living up to expectations.

So the big powers should be more penalized for instance for abandoning allies or declaring wars for self aggrandizement outside their spheres of influence. Most of the world already considers them slightly dangerous due to their power and if they act greedily beyond civilized bounds(exploiting uncivs, area in their sphere of influence) then there are large penalties.

For example Germany wishes to upset the order of power in Europe, ok it manages to gain #1 economic and military rank and fight a war to gain new/larger sphere of influence. Now it must defend those gains and new client smaller powers in its sphere of influence or risk losing prestige etc.

This would require some new type of war or border to designate the sphere of influence but would greatly enhance the game to the flavor of the times as well reduce the debate on how much war game reality aspects to include by reducing overall value of wars of conquest and replace with wars about prestige and dominance.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

What I object to, are people wishing to introduce a system of aerial combat that will only be used for the last 10 years of the game, requiring new division types, unit missions, air combat etc. Or suggesting punitive attrition to your RGOs/Factories from combat, or moving to a brigade-based combat system, or replacing perfectly functional officer pops with an abstracted HOI3-style leadership formula, or severely limited vision, or divisional artillery being able to strike ships etc. These things belong in a war-game, like HOI, but not in a political/economic game, like vicky.

....

This is not a war game, which does not mean that you should just have generic divisions and generic ships. It means that the military focus of the game should be much more "big picture" than HOI's. This means less focus on unit composition (maybe like VIC1 system, plus 1-2 additional brigade types), or on unit upgrades, or officers, or intelligence operations, and a greater focus on the broad strategic aspects of warfare, namely questions of supply, blockade, mobilization and deployment. I believe that this is both better game-play for Victoria and more faithful to the period of the game.

Id be in favour of aerial units that are used as spotters/recon units as per early WW1. I still dont see why having these as 'additional unit types' is such a problem...

And Id be just as happy in regiment micro-management as much as POP management. On a side note, the regiment should definately be the basic unit, having 'divisions' (even under-strength ones) all over your empire is too weird and lessens the feel for the period-where regiments were the units being sent to garrison imperial posts.

And on a more general note, vicky isnt a war game is it? Even though 2 (thats 50% of available scenarios by the way too) scenarios in Vicky1 were designed around specific conflicts.... The proposed cover for Vicky2 begs to differ on the whole 'its not a war game' idea too.

If Vicky is supposed to be representative of a specific period, then war is clearly an intergral part of said timeframe. To deny this in game terms is to short change the fans of this game and this period in history.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

The gameplay in Vicky 1 was broken. Each game you played, whatever intentions you started with, descended into a rigmarole of micro-management and insane declarations of war. When people suggest that certain elements of the combat system from HOI2 (but not the entirety) are incorporated into Vicky 2, then are asking for a system that doesn't really work to be replaced with one which does.

I wouldn't go as far to say that Vicky 1 gameplay was broken, as we would not see so many people claming it's a great game, would we?

But if you mean combat part of the gameplay, yes, it's was simplified and rather unrealistic.

BUT (there is always great BUT) - I don't think piling on tons of changes just for the sake of it would make this system work. Again, remember HoI3. There are some things that should be corrected. Like naval part that was made in HoI1 style (with megastacks of ships), supply system and mobilization vs. standing army (that was leaving you with artillery-less masses of divisions only good for dying in late game). Still, I don't think we need that much to make system work, while avoiding whole system going to hell because of overcomplicating things.

I can't speak for others, but I know I simply want better and updated Vicky, not "game to end all games, with super detailed economy, politics and combat". Basically, I want a sequel like HoI2 was for HoI1. Not in terms of using HoI2 mechanics, but in terms of polishing already decent game concept.

 

[unmerged(181726)]

Id be in favour of aerial units that are used as spotters/recon units as per early WW1. I still dont see why having these as 'additional unit types' is such a problem...

Its not a problem in the "this breaks the game" sense. It is a problem in the sense that large scale air formations only became important in the last 5-10 years of the game, and even then they served fundamentally secondary functions. I tend to think that if something is going to be included it needs to have a function and to be genuinely useful. Creating a unit type whose sole purpose is to reveal the fog of war in adjacent provinces (or to shoot down such units in the case of fighters) does not seem to meet this standard because you might as well turn it into an attachment that revealed adjacent provinces. Now, you could make the case for later game air units, but I would argue that creating a dive-bomber type unit that does org/morale damage to divisions but only becomes available in the late 20s isn't the best use of limited programing resources.

And Id be just as happy in regiment micro-management as much as POP management. On a side note, the regiment should definately be the basic unit, having 'divisions' (even under-strength ones) all over your empire is too weird and lessens the feel for the period-where regiments were the units being sent to garrison imperial posts.

Pop micromanagement has been removed for a reason: its tedious, not fun. So naming an excessively micro, un-fun element is not a justification for adding more excessively micro unfun elements.

I don't particularly care if you name the basic unit a "Division" or a "Brigade" or a "Battalion" and if its 10k, 3k or 600 soldiers strong. What I am arguing against is HOI3 style division construction from brigades. I guess that you are correct in that the basic element on Victorian armies was the brigade/regiment, not the division (I am not positive, but I think divisions only became permanent formations after WWI). If you turn the basic type into "Brigades" (and make them 3k strong) and the attachments into "Battalions" (and make them 600 strong) that works just fine for me. In fact, I like that change.

And on a more general note, vicky isnt a war game is it? Even though 2 (thats 50% of available scenarios by the way too) scenarios in Vicky1 were designed around specific conflicts.... The proposed cover for Vicky2 begs to differ on the whole 'its not a war game' idea too.

If Vicky is supposed to be representative of a specific period, then war is clearly an intergral part of said timeframe. To deny this in game terms is to short change the fans of this game and this period in history.

HOI3 runs from what 1936 to 1948? Thats 12 years of which 6 comprise a general world-wide war involving every major power, and a further 3 (1936-1939) comprise large scale combat operations involving one or more powers (Japan etc). That is, a full 50% of the game represents a period of general war, and 75% of the game represents a period of large scale regional hostilities (or worse). HOI is unambiguously about war.

This is simply not the same in Victoria. In the entire 1836-1936 period there are only 4 years of general war involving every major power (1914-1918), and only about a half dozen wars facing great powers against one another (Crimea, ACW, Autro-Prussian, Franco-Prussian, Russo-Japanese). But the duration of the game is much longer: 100 years. Also note that most of these wars are fairly short, lasting only a few months (except for Crimea at 3 yrs and ACW at 5 yrs). If you add all the years of hostilities together you still get only 4% of the period being general worldwide war, and maybe 15-25% of the period comprising large scale hostilities.

I am not saying "war is not important;" because it is. I am saying war is one of many important elements in this game, and certainly less important than the economic or diplomatic element; contra HOI where war is clearly the most important element by a mile. Which means this is not a game about war (ie a wargame), its a game that involves war. And so given the limited amount of developer time and resources, I'd rather they not spend half their time "getting right" the military feel of the post WWI game, and instead make sure that : a) the nonmilitary aspects of the game are fun and engaging, and b) that the broadly-applicable aspects of combat work well and are balanced (i.e. those that are applicable in 1840 as well as 1920).

If the current military units don't change at all, but supply is included, alliances balance each other out, mobilization works more organically (including partial mobilizations and the ability to mobilize formations with eg artillery attachments), and naval power is useful and compelling, then I will consider the military part of the game a success.

Oh, and automatic reinforcements please (with a priority queue); manually reinforcing every army is tedious beyond belief.