Megathread : Military Aspects of Victoria 2
- Thread starter byzantium43
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't really know how generals work in HoI3, but generals in Victoria was one of the best working features of the game. The amoung of randomness on what kind of general you get was excellent for gameplay.
The generals don't really work in HoI3, every nation lacks them except a few majors all of the time.
oI too loved the general creation of Vicky.
Random moustache generals ftw!
I agree, i also liked the traits and the randomness.
You had to deal with rising stars and adventurers, cowards and whatnot.
It really gave you the feeling you had to work with what you got, whoever made it up through the officers ranks.
Sometimes you had to place your officers where they do the least damage.
I hope this will be influenced by the new laws (aristocracy - meritocracy) or similar.
You had to deal with rising stars and adventurers, cowards and whatnot.
It really gave you the feeling you had to work with what you got, whoever made it up through the officers ranks.
Sometimes you had to place your officers where they do the least damage.
I hope this will be influenced by the new laws (aristocracy - meritocracy) or similar.
I agree, i also liked the traits and the randomness.
You had to deal with rising stars and adventurers, cowards and whatnot.
It really gave you the feeling you had to work with what you got, whoever made it up through the officers ranks.
Sometimes you had to place your officers where they do the least damage.
I hope this will be influenced by the new laws (aristocracy - meritocracy) or similar.
some of the traits were not only pityful but also funny. i remember specially one trait was mamón in the spanish version. literally sucker
o
I agree, i also liked the traits and the randomness.
You had to deal with rising stars and adventurers, cowards and whatnot.
It really gave you the feeling you had to work with what you got, whoever made it up through the officers ranks.
Sometimes you had to place your officers where they do the least damage.
I hope this will be influenced by the new laws (aristocracy - meritocracy) or similar.
Unless you're a larger power, and have more leadership points than you'll ever need.
I got a hellbent cartographer once. Not pitiful, but pretty cool, since the attrition effects canceled each other out.
Yes, even the bad traits are better than no general.
I thought it gave them some personality though.
And yes in V:R and being a larger power you could have enough generals.
As Siam they were unique though.
As for the "sucker"... it was the same in english, i remember when a friend tried the game, he was like, i just got a new admiral...but he is a sucker...WTF?? Hr, hr.
I thought it gave them some personality though.
And yes in V:R and being a larger power you could have enough generals.
As Siam they were unique though.
As for the "sucker"... it was the same in english, i remember when a friend tried the game, he was like, i just got a new admiral...but he is a sucker...WTF?? Hr, hr.
I'm rather torn on this, I loved the system in Victoria, but it was great in the Hearts of Iron games to be able to promote generals, and develop their ability through combat. It would make sense if one is playing as an active power like prussia and fighting a lot of wars, the good generals will get better. Perhaps have the downside be your bad generals have the possibility of getting worse the more they fight?
Perhaps something like a mix of the two would be good. :rofl:
It could work like generals in Vicky, except they don't receive that much of a bonus from their traits at the start. As they get more experience, their traits become better or worse.
It could work like generals in Vicky, except they don't receive that much of a bonus from their traits at the start. As they get more experience, their traits become better or worse.
What about the way it works in EU3. Fighting generates tradition and tradition results into good generals. It was developed to better reflect a countries talent for war, in stead of the individual approach of HOI. Vicky spans more time than HOI, so training your Major Generals to become adequate field Marshalls will be a task of much micro management. By the time you're done the guy is in his sixties and dies of a heart attack the moment he hears of your DoW to Russia.
Lets be honest here, just how many good generals were there in the Vicky period? This was not the era of mercenary princes a la Suvorov, Marlborough, von Schwarzenberg, etc or that of the superb officers of WWII. I mean, Haig was present for virtually every British campaign in the decades prior to WWI and still managed to be a complete incompetent...
The current system works pretty well and, as well as being more descriptive than numerical rankings, makes it all the more delightful when you do get a tactically innovative cartographer
The current system works pretty well and, as well as being more descriptive than numerical rankings, makes it all the more delightful when you do get a tactically innovative cartographer
I'd be fine without all that sophistication, but it would be an interesting twist.
I never built cavalry or dragoons because of the sound they made when you clicked on them. Try listening to that bugle 5 times a minute every minute for 3 hours. Not fun.
I agree, the thing that bugged me the most about HoI3's sprites was just how wrong a single person marching around looks. Having a bunch of smaller figures would go a long way to improving the atmosphere.
I agree, and I also think it would be nice if there was some country-unique sprites, like there was in for example HoI 1 (this would perhaps also demand that the sprites changed with technological advances, as it would be strange to see british army sprites in the 1930s with uniforms belonging to the 1830s). Even if it's not top priority it would definitely add something to the atmosphere!
Last edited:
The CSA had pretty decent generals, so did Prussia and Germany up to and even during WW1. We shouldn't forget that WW1 was a real Gordian knot waiting for the right sword. Even the WW1 generals that now are considered good, like Arthur Currie needed years of bloodshed to realize how things could be done different. Their new tactics brought some great tactical victories but accomplished little strategically. The fact of the matter is that a good general in every war needs to be willing to let his troops get slaughtered. If he wins a strategic victory trough it he's remembered as brilliant, like Zhukov (who was even considered a soldiers general), if he loses he's considered an idiot, like Haig or Nivelle.
I would like to see V2 adopt a platoon-level modelling of military formations in game. I also want to be able to appoint every 2nd Lieutenant in my army.
I also like the EU 3 model, perhaps with Soldier and Aristocrat POPs adding to Military Tradition (I see no need for separate officer POPs).
But I would love to see the bad traits make a comeback as well, especially for a low tradition nation.
But I would love to see the bad traits make a comeback as well, especially for a low tradition nation.
Fighting could generate the tradition instead of aristocrat POPs as in Victoria 1. That way the more you fight the more you get generals and the more likely you are to get good generals among them. All generals should still get a negative and positive trait, since that is plain fun on top of being realistic. Potentially the strenght of both of them could vary depending on the amount of tradition though.