What New Features Would You Like In Combat

[unmerged(181726)]

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.

[...]

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.

I must say I really like your ideas, and I fervently hope that something like this is included.

Perhaps it could work somewhat like the EU3:HTTT CBs, except that eg Russia messing with the German sphere of influence wouldn't give Germany a CB to be employed in the next x months. Instead, it would force Germany to declare war with a certain CB (determining peace costs for different actions) or lose prestige. Of course, you'd need to add the possibility for any limited war to escalate into a general WWI-style conflict, especially late game, which would change possible peace conditions.

 

[KevinG]

I don't know what everyone is talking about when they say casualties are too low and wars are too cheap in vicky 1. Yeah when you're fighting the brain dead AI and you have an advantage it's pretty easy, but in the few MP games I played it seemed like every war was a total war where countries would just create giant super stacks of artillery and send them at each other until one side ran out of men. Even in the 1860's casualties for wars would reach the MILLIONS and the losers (and often times winners) would go bankrupt. But seeing as how bankrupt in vic1 didn't do anything except lower prestige most people didn't even mind bankrupting multiple times.

I don't know if it was a flaw in the economic model, population model, or military model that allowed 200 Prussian art divisions in 1860 but one thing is for sure there are enough casualties as is.

 

[JoeGiavani]

I don't know if it was a flaw in the economic model, population model, or military model that allowed 200 Prussian art divisions in 1860 but one thing is for sure there are enough casualties as is.

I could only afford 6 arty divisions as prussia until I unified.
After normalising my ecomomy and undoing what the AI had done to Hamburg et al, I could usually afford about 24.
Artillery units were VERY expensive in Vicky 1.

 

[blood_lazio]

Since this Vicky goes into the interwar years i really hope that the way you fight wars change greatly with techs. This so as to smooth out the huge developments in how wars where fought in post-Napoleonic times and up to the First World War.

Doctrine should make a huge difference and you should have to change your strategy compared to new techs. One year Blitzing forward would be in and the next digging in for attrition warfare would be the thing to do. Also when one country develops a new thing (like HMS Dreadnought, the machinegun, rifled weapons, tanks and aircraft) other countries should be able to go forward in these fields a lot faster.

All units should only be managed at divisional level and in a relative simple way. But you should be able to give your divisions orders of how to attack and defend. Something like offensive/defensive stands. If a division is set to "defensive" and is attacked it should be a lot better defending than a unit set to "offensive", but when attacking the "offensive" units should be alot more effective. It was a problem in Vicky1 that you could dig-in to insane levels and then when a oppotuinity presented itself you could suddenly attack without long preporations like it was IRL. Also if you have maybe 5 settings for each division then it should take some time to move from one setting to another, maybe a week. Then if you are going from defensive to offensive, you will have to pass semi-defensive, balanced and semi-offensive, and thous it would take a month before you could make a massive offensive, but with the enemy hurt after attacking you, you could still make a limited counter offensive.

This would make the western front in WWI make sence, but since the eastern front was a lot more mobile you would as Germany never set your units there to "defensive".

These stands could have influence mainly on organisation and movement speed of the units. "Offensive" units being faster moving and have a small org. bonus when attacking and "defensive" units deing slower, but having a org. bonus when defending, and also digging in faster and better, and also keeping morale higher when retreating.

And then i just hope this will be sinked in a good way with HOI3 and overall military history, because 1864-71, 1905, 1914-18 all created drastic changes in military thinking and therefore there shouldn't be baby steps ind Vicky 2 and then a huge leep forward come 1936. I would actually be great if some of the HOI3 techs would become available in Vicky 2 or some other way of linking the overlap if fx you won WWI with Germany.

 

[unmerged(63310)]

I'd like to see wars overall made much more difficult to be successful with. This probably means either raising expenses or lowering what you can achieve in a single war. That seems easier and more relevant to the Victorian era than adding more options in combat though there could be a couple key changes to the Vicky 1 combat model for sure.

If there could be an offensive and defensive stance maybe that is overkill. I'd rather just more slow dig in time so a unit takes longer than a week to get a huge bonus.

Most important thing to change is the mobilization system however!!! That change along with how naval ships fight/actions they can perform would solve 80% of the main issues.

Navy;

1. 1 ship can't carry 1 million men... one of the main limiters on colonial armies was shipping the men and munitions halfway around the world.
2. Embargo or shore bombardment have some effect
3. Higher level ships costs raised hugely. No nation in 1930 should be able to build 100 battleships at once without completely warping its economy.

 

[KevinG]

I could only afford 6 arty divisions as prussia until I unified.
After normalising my ecomomy and undoing what the AI had done to Hamburg et al, I could usually afford about 24.
Artillery units were VERY expensive in Vicky 1.

I should have clarified that by 1850 Prussia has unified Germany in basically every game, but even then just because you can't afford more than 6 artillery doesn't mean everyone else can't. I could afford 20 artillery during war times as Sweden in 1860 without going into debt and larger nations can afford way more then that if they are willing to go into heavy debt. Point is casualties were way too high in Vic1 so there's no need to INCREASE them.

 

[KevinG]

I'd like to see wars overall made much more difficult to be successful with. This probably means either raising expenses or lowering what you can achieve in a single war. That seems easier and more relevant to the Victorian era than adding more options in combat though there could be a couple key changes to the Vicky 1 combat model for sure.

If there could be an offensive and defensive stance maybe that is overkill. I'd rather just more slow dig in time so a unit takes longer than a week to get a huge bonus.

Most important thing to change is the mobilization system however!!! That change along with how naval ships fight/actions they can perform would solve 80% of the main issues.

Navy;

1. 1 ship can't carry 1 million men... one of the main limiters on colonial armies was shipping the men and munitions halfway around the world.
2. Embargo or shore bombardment have some effect
3. Higher level ships costs raised hugely. No nation in 1930 should be able to build 100 battleships at once without completely warping its economy.

The more I think about it the more I think it's mainly the economy's fault that 100 battleships were possible in vic1 for every major nation. The same nations could also afford to turn every non factory POP into an artillery division late game. Also, even with the huge casualties nations took during wars countries would end up having 1.5-2x their historical populations in MP games. Basically its just too easy to make money if you know what you're doing and POPs grow too fast. I think some form of diminishing returns should be applied to all aspects of Victoria as this would fix a LOT of things.

 

[unmerged(63310)]

The more I think about it the more I think it's mainly the economy's fault that 100 battleships were possible in vic1 for every major nation. The same nations could also afford to turn every non factory POP into an artillery division late game. Also, even with the huge casualties nations took during wars countries would end up having 1.5-2x their historical populations in MP games. Basically its just too easy to make money if you know what you're doing and POPs grow too fast. I think some form of diminishing returns should be applied to all aspects of Victoria as this would fix a LOT of things.

Yep- that is my #1 request for the economy of Vicky 2. That along with these small changes to military model such as ship building costs and mobilization would make a huge difference.

Really think the economy having diminishing return is the most important positive change that could happen. Especially if applied to all aspects... like research for example. So this way more advanced richer countries are always ahead of mid sized ones but there is an upper limit how fast you can push new inventions no matter how much money/education slider you pour into projects. Would prefer a naturally defined limit which countries push against and that diminishes returns as more is invested than the hard limits of tech in V1 where you could hit the wall of techs and have to wait for a few years to gain access to anything new to research.

 

[blood_lazio]

I'd like to see wars overall made much more difficult to be successful with. This probably means either raising expenses or lowering what you can achieve in a single war. That seems easier and more relevant to the Victorian era than adding more options in combat though there could be a couple key changes to the Vicky 1 combat model for sure.

That would be imo historically incorrect, think about 1870-1871... The problem is the political system... If you as Germany canquered France in 1870 and annexed the whole thing (which should be possible ingame) then Austria, Italy, Russia and UK (maybe even Turkey might also join in) would imidiatly ally and declare war... And this would happen even if 1 or 2 of thoes countries where your allies...

What kept wars to a minimum untill WWI was the threat of being stabed in the back by your own allies..

At the time there was an idea of what was fair to demand, and if you demanded more, then the world would turn on you. Like in the Crimean War where the world turned on Russia, because they where getting too strong...

A good eksample is 1867 and the Prusso-Austrian war, where Prussia could have gone all the way and forced Austrian into a united Germany, but this would have lead to imidiat war not only with France, but also every other power in Europe..

 

[Aragos]

I'd like realistic limits to both army and navy sizes. In a recent V:R game (I as USA), the UK had over 300 dreadnoughts. I learned, to fool the ai, you never, ever wipe out their Man-O-Wars. They 'count' as capital ships, so the AI doesn't build more.

Navy:

Range limits on ships. No more sending a fleet of coastal monitors from New York to Sumatra. Tie it to naval bases/coaling stations and technology. Coal and oil fired ships should have a much shorter range than sailing ships, for example.

Army:

I'd like a HOI3-like brigade structure, but that will prob not work with this type of game.

Supply limits. Stacking penalties (aka no more superstacks). Automatic mobilization limits, based on national size. A big country automatically has a size, in divisions, that can be raised (USA, UK, FRA, GER would have a lot in full mobilization; El Salvador may only have 1).

 

[Cinéad IV]

Looks like we're getting armies which consume goods

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Navy:

Range limits on ships. No more sending a fleet of coastal monitors from New York to Sumatra. Tie it to naval bases/coaling stations and technology. Coal and oil fired ships should have a much shorter range than sailing ships, for example.

Absolutely agree on this. The UK didnt take over the Falklands for the weather. Naval bases/range are a must.

Tie this in to Coaling station colony building and actually give a purpose to building such a structure.

If sail ships had to replenish at ports, ie- cant be at sea indefinately, Id support that too.

 

[unmerged(63310)]

That would be imo historically incorrect, think about 1870-1871... The problem is the political system... If you as Germany canquered France in 1870 and annexed the whole thing (which should be possible ingame) then Austria, Italy, Russia and UK (maybe even Turkey might also join in) would imidiatly ally and declare war... And this would happen even if 1 or 2 of thoes countries where your allies...

What kept wars to a minimum untill WWI was the threat of being stabed in the back by your own allies..

At the time there was an idea of what was fair to demand, and if you demanded more, then the world would turn on you. Like in the Crimean War where the world turned on Russia, because they where getting too strong...

A good eksample is 1867 and the Prusso-Austrian war, where Prussia could have gone all the way and forced Austrian into a united Germany, but this would have lead to imidiat war not only with France, but also every other power in Europe..

I have no hope of a realistic threat assessment script being created for the AI of every nation let alone even the majors so political alliances and power blocs achieving what you wrote are a a great ideal but probably not going to happen. Including spheres of influence and more diplomatic possibilities is about the most I expect of V2 and depending on how sphere of influence and how satellites and alliances work that is probably all that needs to be included. The more complex you make it the more the AI will struggle and large exploits/bugs will appear.

As well in the Victorian era it wasn't all about land grab as in EU earlier eras where if you could take it and hold it you owned it. Those eras were much more about distrust between neighbors. By Victorian era it had turned more into an economics game and protecting turf and rewarding clients states or punishing misbehaving local powers which did not sufficiently submit to the major power whose sphere of influence the smaller powers were inside.

As for Germany annexing all of France- that wasn't possible in V1 and should not be possible in V2 without multiple wars... many, many wars most likely. Defined national identities as opposed to local feudal rulers backing the strongest power changes the rules of conquest.

 

[Shabz]

Will there be an AI to conduct army operations in Vicky as in HOI3? That would be a nice option if implemented as in patch 1.3 of HoI where it does good job. After all in Vicky, the entire point of the game was never about making war, so it should be a bit more AI-friendly than HoI3 was. Perhaps this was mentioned somewhere during this thread, but I didn't follow it, so I am sorry if this is a deja vu...

 

[blood_lazio]

I have no hope of a realistic threat assessment script being created for the AI of every nation let alone even the majors so political alliances and power blocs achieving what you wrote are a a great ideal but probably not going to happen. Including spheres of influence and more diplomatic possibilities is about the most I expect of V2 and depending on how sphere of influence and how satellites and alliances work that is probably all that needs to be included. The more complex you make it the more the AI will struggle and large exploits/bugs will appear.

As well in the Victorian era it wasn't all about land grab as in EU earlier eras where if you could take it and hold it you owned it. Those eras were much more about distrust between neighbors. By Victorian era it had turned more into an economics game and protecting turf and rewarding clients states or punishing misbehaving local powers which did not sufficiently submit to the major power whose sphere of influence the smaller powers were inside.

As for Germany annexing all of France- that wasn't possible in V1 and should not be possible in V2 without multiple wars... many, many wars most likely. Defined national identities as opposed to local feudal rulers backing the strongest power changes the rules of conquest.

I don't think the threat element in HoI is a major issue, and should work just fine i Vicky making it much more realistic, compared to how much you change.

And on the geopolitical point i think we agree...

I would just be nice to see it as a feature in V2, because it gives you more freedom to play. I have been playing the US many times in V1 and it was really annoying you had to fight Mexico 2-3-4 times before you could annex them, when i was wastly superior in force. If you control all provinces of a country you should be able to annex them, but if you do, then the major power will unite against you.

This is a game that streaches into WWI and therefore needs a realistic element to fight wars aswell.

When you are at war and get a peaceoffer, then there should just be a threat-meter there, where you could get an idea of how much you could demand. If you (Prussia) reject a peaceoffer (from Austria) that the UK thinks is as much as is fair, then they will declare war on you. Paradox games are about giving the player freedom in their strategic approaches, and this would recreate the periods exact environment, and probably need less AI element. And this threat system is already tested in HoI and therefore would probably work better than the alternative.

 

[unmerged(63310)]

I don't think the threat element in HoI is a major issue, and should work just fine i Vicky making it much more realistic, compared to how much you change.

And on the geopolitical point i think we agree...

I would just be nice to see it as a feature in V2, because it gives you more freedom to play. I have been playing the US many times in V1 and it was really annoying you had to fight Mexico 2-3-4 times before you could annex them, when i was wastly superior in force. If you control all provinces of a country you should be able to annex them, but if you do, then the major power will unite against you.

This is a game that streaches into WWI and therefore needs a realistic element to fight wars aswell.

When you are at war and get a peaceoffer, then there should just be a threat-meter there, where you could get an idea of how much you could demand. If you (Prussia) reject a peaceoffer (from Austria) that the UK thinks is as much as is fair, then they will declare war on you. Paradox games are about giving the player freedom in their strategic approaches, and this would recreate the periods exact environment, and probably need less AI element. And this threat system is already tested in HoI and therefore would probably work better than the alternative.

Hmm... what I meant by realistic threat assessment is the AI controlled nations would take actions to prevent rise of a rival. Such things like fence of alliances, support of regional rival etc. In V1 the most fun nation for me to play was one of the italian minors due to French support for Piedmont and Austrian intervention. That actually seemed like what should happen. Heavily scripted but in that case it worked. However it required lots of scripting and events. In the lack of the AI being able to naturally achieve similar results there is what I mean.

In the case of Mexico it was simply insane AI due to core province claims. It would have been so much better that if USA had Mexican core provinces and was quite more powerful then Mexico wouldn't insanely DoW and lose even more provinces... it would develop as strong as possible and seek alliances with USA enemies. First time USA gets in another war say vs UK or some other major power then Mexico DoW.

I don't support being able to annex all lands you are able to occupy. Would make the game incredibly too easy for expansionary power. If you play USA and want to own Mexico you'll have to wage numerous wars, fight revolts, and deal with building new infrastructure etc over a long period of time. That is how it should be. Even in USA vs Mexico wars when there was some talk in US congress of demanding more land after marching on Mexico city but it was never in the attempt to annex all of Mexico... just grab more territory while Mexico lay defeated. Ultimately it was rejected because USA had achieved its chief aims of settling the Texas and California ownerships and the prejudice against Mexicans who were thought to be never capable of becoming "anglicized."

If nothing better can be done then your proposal of a threat meter or something while at war is better than the current system of V1 settlements but is still very reactive and the AI probably already acting too late if it waits for a neighbor to be forced to peace settlement talks which are very unfavorable.

I'm much in favor of more flexible diplomatic options... IE- no hard alliances or truces. Where if Danemark defeats Prussia and annex some small German states it can immediately DoW Sweden with its border vs Germany 100% guaranteed due to recent peace settlement for some number of years. Peace settlements like that should only be possible to be trusted if there are no further aggressive actions.

 

[blood_lazio]

Hmm... what I meant by realistic threat assessment is the AI controlled nations would take actions to prevent rise of a rival. Such things like fence of alliances, support of regional rival etc. In V1 the most fun nation for me to play was one of the italian minors due to French support for Piedmont and Austrian intervention. That actually seemed like what should happen. Heavily scripted but in that case it worked. However it required lots of scripting and events. In the lack of the AI being able to naturally achieve similar results there is what I mean.

In the case of Mexico it was simply insane AI due to core province claims. It would have been so much better that if USA had Mexican core provinces and was quite more powerful then Mexico wouldn't insanely DoW and lose even more provinces... it would develop as strong as possible and seek alliances with USA enemies. First time USA gets in another war say vs UK or some other major power then Mexico DoW.

I don't support being able to annex all lands you are able to occupy. Would make the game incredibly too easy for expansionary power. If you play USA and want to own Mexico you'll have to wage numerous wars, fight revolts, and deal with building new infrastructure etc over a long period of time. That is how it should be. Even in USA vs Mexico wars when there was some talk in US congress of demanding more land after marching on Mexico city but it was never in the attempt to annex all of Mexico... just grab more territory while Mexico lay defeated. Ultimately it was rejected because USA had achieved its chief aims of settling the Texas and California ownerships and the prejudice against Mexicans who were thought to be never capable of becoming "anglicized."

If nothing better can be done then your proposal of a threat meter or something while at war is better than the current system of V1 settlements but is still very reactive and the AI probably already acting too late if it waits for a neighbor to be forced to peace settlement talks which are very unfavorable.

I'm much in favor of more flexible diplomatic options... IE- no hard alliances or truces. Where if Danemark defeats Prussia and annex some small German states it can immediately DoW Sweden with its border vs Germany 100% guaranteed due to recent peace settlement for some number of years. Peace settlements like that should only be possible to be trusted if there are no further aggressive actions.

I can agree with most of that, but not not the annexation. But it should have heavy penalties, including loads of uprisings and international intervention. I reality the majors, could just annex, but would then face the consequenses. From seeing these consequenses being handed out to other Countries before, then most countries where not interested in this strategy. But when you start to change History in a game like Vicky, then you also open up for different strategic approaches. This should be represented in the game, by not forcing people to make the war path secondary from scripting, when event have forced them to prefere war. But also not force people to fight all the time. I just want the game to be open to individual strategies and balanced, it's okay if there strategies are somewhat hardcoded for the AI-countries*, but for the human player there should be some freedom of play...

*Maybe giving them a kind of territorial shopping list, with priority and importance - if multiple countries where united, then this wouldn't be a problem, because they would the just get the ambitions of all countries combined, but priority and importance would be propotionally balanced

 

[supergamelin]

The things I would most like to see changed in combat :

-no more fights to the death where units fight until they are exterminated. this did not happen.
-realistic battle lenghts battles lasted only a few days at most until WWI
-sieges: sebastopol, paris, metz, vicksburg, petersburg, port arthur..........
-realistically sized armies: no more 300 division strong british army in 1850
-realistic possibilities of deploying and operating troops overseas (50 divisions strongs british landings during the crimean war suck)
-various sizes of units that are adapted to the situation: US army should be only a few 1000 strong regiments for most of the game. Even divisions would be too big. On the other end as Germany France or Russia by 1914 I want to be abe to manoeuvre corps or even armies. so something like that would be nice:
1000 strong: us/british regiment colonial regiment........
3000 - 5000 strong: continental regiment us/british brigade
12000 - 18000 strong :division
40000 60000 strong: army corps
with for exemple the possibility to split units into smaller size or regroup them
and the possibility to produce the different sizes of units according to the situation.

 

[unmerged(48627)]

This could be handled simply by taking a page from HOI3's book: instead of having that "mobilization pool" of divisions that only exist virtually until you click a button, you could have cadre divisions sitting where you want them deployed in case of mobilization, and when you throw out an order for mobilization the workers are turned into soldiers and those divisions are automatically reinforced from that manpower.

Changing your mobilization plans would simply mean moving those divisions around to go with your strategy.

And while you are not mobilized, the cadre divisions still have to pay some upkeep, so you don't have as much of an "instant army, just add water" effect to mobilization.

I totally agree with this suggestion. One should have to build up a reserve unit representing a depot/quartermaster and a small staff of officers/NCO`s . When you mobilize you can only mobilize according to the number of reserve units you have built.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

All units should only be managed at divisional level and in a relative simple way. But you should be able to give your divisions orders of how to attack and defend. Something like offensive/defensive stands. If a division is set to "defensive" and is attacked it should be a lot better defending than a unit set to "offensive", but when attacking the "offensive" units should be alot more effective. It was a problem in Vicky1 that you could dig-in to insane levels and then when a oppotuinity presented itself you could suddenly attack without long preporations like it was IRL. Also if you have maybe 5 settings for each division then it should take some time to move from one setting to another, maybe a week. Then if you are going from defensive to offensive, you will have to pass semi-defensive, balanced and semi-offensive, and thous it would take a month before you could make a massive offensive, but with the enemy hurt after attacking you, you could still make a limited counter offensive.

I wouldn't know, this would increase the micromanagement load on the player significantly. And when it comes to preparations for attack, the preparations were mostly operational planning, not really anything the guys in the division would have to take part in. A dug-in unit on the defence could plausibly switch instantly to the offence, as long as someone had made an attack plan in advance. A system where premade attack plans would actually become relevant is hardly within the scope of Victoria 2, not even HoI3 has that detail level.