Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: jchastain

One things that is beginning to seem a little bit odd to me - war is largely about walking through the foreign countryside until you reach their capital. The fastest path to victory is usually just ignoring every province until you get to where the big cheese lives. The capital is 3 provinces deep? No problem, just leave a trail of depots and ignore all that junk and go get the job done. Doesn't that seem strange? Wouldn't it be somewhat reasonable for armies to have an incentive to capture each city along the way instead of just running a 500 mile dash to the capital?

In my mind, this is likely a result of two factors:
1. Sieges can take quite a while and it would slow your army considerably if it had to take each city along the way,
2. And more importantly, there is no reason to take the intermediate cities. Supply runs just fine through the enemy countryside.

Does anyone else think this is a bit strange?

ORIGINAL: jchastain

One things that is beginning to seem a little bit odd to me - war is largely about walking through the foreign countryside until you reach their capital. The fastest path to victory is usually just ignoring every province until you get to where the big cheese lives. The capital is 3 provinces deep? No problem, just leave a trail of depots and ignore all that junk and go get the job done. Doesn't that seem strange? Wouldn't it be somewhat reasonable for armies to have an incentive to capture each city along the way instead of just running a 500 mile dash to the capital?

In my mind, this is likely a result of two factors:
1. Sieges can take quite a while and it would slow your army considerably if it had to take each city along the way,
2. And more importantly, there is no reason to take the intermediate cities. Supply runs just fine through the enemy countryside.

Does anyone else think this is a bit strange?

In my mind, this is likely a result of two factors:
1. Sieges can take quite a while and it would slow your army considerably if it had to take each city along the way,
2. And more importantly, there is no reason to take the intermediate cities. Supply runs just fine through the enemy countryside.

Does anyone else think this is a bit strange?

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum



Which campaign in the Napoleonic Wars actually ended with the capture of a capital?

The capital really shouldn't matter for any nation except France. Yes, the capital is important for generating wealth and troops, but wars are won by destroying your opponent's will to fight and often that comes only after their army has been destroyed.

Shooting a straight line for the enemy capital is exactly the sort of thing that should get you losing campaigns. The enemy is defending ever step of the way and knows exactly where you are fom and going to. Meanwhile they can encircle and sever your LoC.

Part of the issue though is that the provinces in this game are so huge that there really is little room or reason to maneuver. Rhine to Vienna? No choice on path. Bludgeon your way there and tell yourself that all the cool maneuvering and excitement of strategy is going on in a microscopic level within those provinces that you are not privy to.

Well, that might have more to do with Napoleon just utterly decimating the enemies armies. He didn't have to make it to the capital. Back then, it's still generally a viable military target, after all, why was Napoleon trying so hard to make it to Moscow...

It wasn't for the borscht!

ORIGINAL: jchastain

After reading all the replies, I am thinking 2 minor changes would help...

1. Any unfriendly depot in a province is disrupted and removed if its owner doesn't have more troops in the province than the garrison within the city. Essentially, you must (a) guard your supply lines by leaving troops in place, (b) take the cities as you go to secure your flank, or (c) forage and not depend on supplies from home.

2. The value of the capital in determining surrender should be lowered and should be impacted by level of feudalism. In a completely feudalistic nation, it is the same as any other province. In a completely centralized nation, it is 2x the value it would have were it not the capital. For any level of feudalism between those two extremes, the multiplier should be calculated one a stright line sliding scale based on the feudalism level.

With those 2 changes, and especially with #1, I think we would see people altering their plans of attack quite substantially. The changes themselves are quite simple. The hard part would be teaching the AI to deal with the new rules. But I think it would make for some much more rationale campaigns.

ORIGINAL: EarlPembroke

In the game I'm playing, my depots are continually destroyed by marauding enemy units - individual divisions. It is virtually impossible for me to run a supply line without leaving troops behind. Maybe it's because I'm fighting Spain, Russia, and Turkey ... ? But it shows the AI can do it. However, I would support at least having to leave a division behind to guard each depot.

Think the penalty of a captured capital on morale could be toned down a bit. My big issue with this situation is that the AI nations generally send large armies to the other nation's capital, leaving their own capital nearly defenseless. What this leads to is a mad rush to the other capital, hoping you take theirs before they take yours. Whoever sieges the enemy capital faster wins the war.

We don't want to go so far as to make it where you have to take every province, though, to bring the enemy to the table. In the case of beating Austria, the campaigns didn't last a whole lot longer, as I recall, after Napoleon had taken Vienna. Basically it was: "take the capital and then beat the main enemy army" and the nation falls. That was what made Russia different - they waited Napoleon out. However, that was partly due to the fact that their army wasn't really destroyed after Borodino ... ? They had not been beaten the way (they and) Austria had been at Austerlitz. Or the way France surrendered when Paris fell. Even Spain didn't really fight on as a nation a long time after Madrid fell, but there was a lot of guerrilla warfare. Or is my recollection off base and there were long campaigns after the enemy capital fell? (Maybe Prussia?)

Teach the AI to move out and destroy unprotected depots

Teach the AI to move out to cut lines of retreat

ORIGINAL: EarlPembroke

Mogami, you are correct - this is AI/single-player issue.

jchastain - As usual, I agree with you. [:)] Doesn't war weariness increase likelihood of rebels? Another thing related to that - I think there should be more limited surrenders. Very rare - and should be offered as a nation's morale is dropping, rather than waiting until forced to surrender by -750 morale....

ahauschild - I would say that perhaps it would be enough to leave enough troops to match the garrison (or enough to have a siege, whatever the requirements). Wasn't it common to detach divisions to guard supply lines (not necessarily corps)? Seems that enough to guard the supply lines / bottle up the enemy in a fortress would be enough.