PDX has relied on battle score + occupation score since EU1, and it's really tiresome system.Does anyone have better ideas?
>>1879990First, tell me what you find wrong with it
>>1879990Score isn't badIt's that you have to TOTALEN KRIEG every nation to take minor possessions which was never ever the case IRL
>>1879990The other way would be a control = ownership model, like how Total War, Civ, Imperator great wars, EU3 wars against hordes worked.I think EU series should definitely use this in more contexts, it's always painful when you're doing some epic conquest of a rival nation only to max out 40% of their territory.
>>1880162Agreed. Though that would make things too easy and snowbally, a way to stop snowballs would be to have actual manpower in garrisons directly from your army which would act as a natural limiter for your conquest.
>>1880162It's also what the canceled magna mundi was doing going to do.It's kinda neat idea, if you refuse peace and insist on dragging the war out, the enemy is gradually going to start annexing border provinces.>>1880162There is certainly merit to the total war approach. But occupation has its merit.Think best approach would be a hybrid.I.e. when you occupy a province it gets occupied.However, once it has been occupied for 12 months the occupied has the option of annexing it.It would give the defender a reason peace out or recapture it before that happens.
>>1879990better? No, but a more realistic one would be tied to available manpower and fielded troops. When you end up with 0 army or outnumbered 100:1 and losing battles, you basically cease to exist as a state as literally anyone with an army can now lord over you
>>1880266Old versions of MEIOU had if you occupied a core province for 12 months you annexed it. I think the Turks had an OP buff where they could do that without it being a core.
>>1880146I find this percentage-based system to be too gamy.Like in CK3 you get 100% war score if you capture a king, despite there being numerous examples of wars where the capture of king didn't end the war.Second thing is, why should battles even contribute warscore?If you defeated my army 3 years ago, and I have fully recovered, why should it even be a factor?Armies and battles are a means to an end.>>1880185garrison cost would indeed naturally limit expansion, and I'm not sure why it hasn't been done
>>1880336>Second thing is, why should battles even contribute warscore?This would first require a complete redo of the military systems (something which PDX is too lazy to do), because irl, especially in the Middle Ages, the battle only happened at the end of the war or after a long siege, most of the war was spent on harassing each other, raiding and skirmishing until one side broke or lost enough supplies, and only then you would press the battle. This is also why often bigger armies got obliterated by smaller armies, something which is also impossible in this game.
>>1880274I'd also add some sort of a state integrity modifier, ending with unconditional surrender when 0% is reached due to no manpower, no fielded army, no garrisons, low morale, occupied territory and forts, etc Something like war support in hoi4 but not tied to economic modifiers at all
>>1880336>why should battles even contribute warscore?men die in battles - more men die in battles - even more men die in battles - nobody works in the fields - mass starvation - it's over map painter games gotta simulate famines for real for real
>>1879990>Is there a better way to do a war system?Hex and chit
>>1880380Historically the percentage of men in armies was a fraction of total manpower.Like battle of Towtown was the largest English battle of the medieval period, and it only represented 1% of England's population.Napoleon set a new precedent for mobilization when he was able to mobilize 10% of France.So, it doesn't really impact agriculture if 1% of the population dies.
>>1880395That is not exactly true, because that only takes into account the recruitment. But during the war, you are still killing the civilians as well. As the army marches and procures the supplies. And not only the civilians will try to protect their belongings, but if you take enough supplies from the region, and devastate the rest, it will still spark famines. CK3 really needs to actually simulate these kinds of stuff.
>>1880405I don't think individual raids had significant impact.Peasant's uprisings on the other hand...
>>1880408>I don't think individual raids had significant impact.They did, medieval style of warfare is to take everything you can to sustain the army, and then burn the rest to cripple the defenders. I was just rereading stuff on the wars between Great Moravia and East Francia and it was talking about that too.
>>1880336Historically defeats on the level of paradox games were catastrophic militarily, economically, and politically. The fact that you can lose 10 times the soldiers compared to battles that were so impactful they are still talked about today and only experience minor setbacks is simply absurd.
i recently played rule the waves 3 for the first time and i feel like the combat system they use could work well for paradicks games. the world is divided into like 12 massive zones (northern europe, baltic, mediterranean, etc.) that nations have territories. when you go to war, you put your fleet in another zone to blockade or defend, and in between turns there are rolls for combat engagements that depend on number of ships, types of ships, admiral stats, and other factors. the types of combat are like cruiser engagement, convoy attack/defense, coastal attack/defense, fleet battle, duel between raider and blockade runner. participants have a change to decline the encounter (unless they have a catastrophic failure on their command roll which means they can't), but doing so gives free victory points to the enemy, but the alternative is a loss which would potentially give the enemy more points and result in you losing ships. rtw3 is closer to total war since the battles are basically real time with pause, but something like that in crusader kings could work. you could even get things like leader traits getting involved (impatient leaders might jump into a fight, cowardly might avoid them altogether, all those combat traits like raider could affect what type of engagements happen)
>>1879990Relative army strength could be a welcome addition.
>>1880154This. It also makes navies worthless as the ocean doesn't contain any victory points.
>>1880505You do get score from blockade. Maybe it could be a ticker.
>>1880508But not every naval war should revolve around blockades. You just need more ways of scoring, and the allowance for Fleet in Being. If you have a big navy, you get a flat score bonus for it just existing. Which encourages you to take out the enemy navy to remove that passive bonus.
>>1880512Maybe something to do with disrupting trade? Say in EU4 if you were to set a naval mission to blockade or patrol in X trade node or sea it would reduce if not outright remove any influence the nation you're at war with has in the node, and you would get a corresponding amount of warscore base on that amount of trade power or however much money it was worth. That way it wouldn't effect any landlocked powers but would be required for any trading nations or colonial empires.
>>1880522The efficiency of naval blockades is very questionable even in EU timespan and the further, you go into history the more questionable it becomes.
>>1880522I agree that it needs to be a naval war for naval points to matter, but a great powers war should absolutely involve things like scoring points from naval invading even minor colonial possessions and fleet in being.
>>1880390Hexshit fundamentally goes against what Paradox games try to do. They're strategy games second and autistic map painters first, so its players will always prefer blobs over hexes, which is why HOI4's map looks like that even thiugh hexes would be perfect for it. You're correct that hexes would be better, the problem is that you're trying to put them in a Paradox game.
>>1880525Sure, but I'm more trying to think how to represent seizing trading vessels or treasure ships as prizes. When playing a nation reliant on trade loss of control over the seas should be devestating>>1880527I agree with the first one, but I don't think the mere exisitance of a fleet should give warscore. A fleet shouldn't be able to win wars against Afganistan, or any nation with a port but little reliance on international trade/no colonial empire.
>>1880468>i recently played rule the waves 3 for the first timeSame, but in my opinion the RTW system is not that good, it wholly relies on the battle generator. So either the battles are made artificially fair, which is boring and unhistorical, or not, which is annoying when it doesn't go your way and braindead easy when it does. It also takes a whole layer of warfare away from the player, which is controlling what your armies or fleets actually need to do beyond a vague "active/reserve/raid in this particular region of the world". It's less bad for naval warfare because of its particular nature, but I don't see it working for land warfare at all.>>1880522Trade is a good point, also logistics for distant wars (it's ridiculous that troops transported by boat take attrition losses in EU4, while troops marching on their feet don't), and sieging coastal cities. I agree with the above poster that region-wide naval blockades as they exist in EU4 make little sense, but blockading a port should be a necessary condition to take a coastal fort without assaulting it
>>1880154It got worse with the EU4 fort update, funnily enough.
>>1879990Victoria 3 has the best war system and you know its true
