Automated warfare

[Lord Lambert]

Why so much hate? I could also say ’get out’ to all who are for automated trade or automated production methods in Victoria 3 but

You can do whatever you want. "Get out" is said in jest, I don't actually want you to leave the forum because of your terrible gameplay preferences.

appealing more players is great for the game in terms of its longevity which IMO is always crucial if we all want good and polished product.

There is not much of a playerbase for Vic3 to start with, and it is increasingly and deservedly becoming smaller and smaller. Those who still play the game aren't even necessarily in favour of their torrid warfare system too, so it's an even smaller subset of players you'd be trying to appeal to.

Please note that subjective ’arguments’ used in Victoria 3 against micro in economy could be also used in EU5 against micro in warfare and below is a brief list of examples:

Yeah doubt it.

1. Micro in warfare is tedious and consequently, boring. Totally subjective argument but still present in the discussion on micro in Victoria 3.

Yeah, subjective and ignorable.

2. PDX games are grand strategy games so, controlling or overseeing tiny elements required to run a country (in this case, army) is suitable for a RTS genre (e.g. Command and Conquer series).

Ludicrous argument. PDX games have the player as the spirit of the nation (CK3 has you as the spirit of the dynasty) and controlling the military to the extent one does in every game bar the monumental failure that is Vic3 is both well within the remit of spirit of the nation and completely expected.

3. You are a ‘spirit of a country‘ thus, you should make only general and most crucial decision without direct impact on the country (in terms of warfare, such as selecting only general directions for an attack or choosing generals with specific, suited to you stats, or with specific approach to combat, like more offensive or defensive combat style).

See above.

4. COOKIE CLICKER etc. No comments.

Because it's right.

 

[Diogenes_Quanzi]

Why is this remotely surprising to you?

I guess mostly because 'spirit of the nation' is a strange concept to me xD Although one that has helped create my favorite game of all time. I actually think less army control doesn't necessarily make sense for the game, since EU to a large extent is a game about the military revolution. Maybe, it's something I as a player mistakenly think I want, while in practice might make me feel miserable.

I just think it would be beautiful to declare a war and then have to reduce one's war aims, because the generals mucked up the war at some point.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Here's hoping. The worst part of most PDX games prior to Vic3 was dealing with dozens or hundreds of stacks by the late game. I remember playing as Germany and having full stacks on every province on my border with another stack on every province behind that. Was there a certain joy in telling my legions to march forth? Sure. Did it mean I avoided starting wars and often gave up the save after the first one where I really used them? Also yes. Invading Russia like that was awful, cycling stacks on my battles with France was mild torture, replenishing my stacks so they functioned right after a rebellion or my pops in that state shrank beyond replacement was even worse.

VIc3 didn't solve all my issues with that and brought with it some of the issues from HoI4, but it's a step in the right direction for that specific game and era, so I hope there's some amount of automation in PC so I can give some of my Russian armies a goal off in Central Asia or Siberia while I deal with the much more interesting 30 Years War, and I hope those armies are based on templates that will adjust where they source the manpower in response to changing pop levels (or however PC decides to handle individual units/manpower/army constuction).

 

[PK_AZ]

Sigh. Can we make it clear, once and for while, that there is no automation of warfare in Victoria 3. There is nothing to automate. No stacks moving between provinces beyond player control. There is totally different warfare model, based on different premises, and designed for different dynamics.
Likewise, there is no such thing like 'frontlines, like in HoI4 or Vic3". HoI4 use classical stack-in-province model, with some minor alteration, and with some pseudoautomation build over it. Victoria 3 use totally different warfare model, based on different premises, and designed for different dynamics.

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

, so I hope there's some amount of automation in PC so I can give some of my Russian armies a goal off in Central Asia or Siberia while I deal with the much more interesting 30 Years War, and I hope those armies are based on templates that will adjust where they source the manpower in response to changing pop levels (or however PC decides to handle individual units/manpower/army constuction).

I really hope for an improved version of the IR army automation. There you could only give general orders like act freely like any AI would, or siege, or defend borders, or attack rebels.

I do hope that i can select a stack and tell it to ship itself as needed and fix the war for me in Africa and America while I deal with my main army a war in Europe.

Or in a big war in Europe. Say Im austria. I can send one stack and tell it to focus on the germany front of the war while i personally control a stack or two to fight in the Balcans against the Ottomans.

One problem of the AI control in IR was that they would not get on boat to go to other places. I hope thats changed.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Sigh. Can we make it clear, once and for while, that there is no automation of warfare in Victoria 3. There is nothing to automate. No stacks moving between provinces beyond player control. There is totally different warfare model, based on different premises, and designed for different dynamics.

I think people understand that just fine, they just use "automation" to refer to having armies function without player input more detailed than an attack/defend order and an assignment to a front. Maybe there's a better word for it, but if it's not what people are actually using to describe it then I don't think it really matters.

 

[greywulfos]

What they really need to do is balance the war score system so that you don't always need to have a total war in like 1520. At least in the beginning of the game. The less you need to carpet siege, the less tedious it is to manage your stacks and the less need for automation.

Also, if they do it how it works in CK3, where conquering the main city/castle takes the whole province that would also help a lot.

To be frank, needing to carpet siege is actually less of a problem at the beginning of the game than it is later into the game. After all, at the beginning of the game, tags are smaller and have less dev so it's easier to fully siege them and you can annex more land for less AE.

Later into the game, countries get enormous, sieges last forever, and provinces are so developed you're not able to really take that much even with CBs like Imperialism and high administrative efficiency.

 

[Wagner Joy Division]

Yeah! Let's try it AGAIN, it worked so majestic last time

 

[Wagner Joy Division]

This seems like rage bait to me tbh. I feel like vast majority of people who are into paradox strategy games does not like combat in Vic3.

Vctoria 3 is not a "Paradox strategy game"

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Get out.

Skill issue?

Nah. More like 99.99999%.

Yes.

 

[PK_AZ]

Maybe there's a better word for it, but if it's not what people are actually using to describe it then I don't think it really matters.

I think it do, in fact, matter. For example half of this thread is not about army automation (Imperator-style, by lack of other options), but about why people hate Victoria 3. Considering that it was clearly stated that Project Caesar will not have Vic3 warfare model, half of this thread is basically waste of everyone's time.

Yeah! Let's try it AGAIN, it worked so majestic last time

Well, I think Imperator: Rome failed for different reason than for it having army automation.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

We have different preferences, therefore, optional automation IMO would be the best. If you like the micro, you do not have to click the “automate“ button, however, if not, go for it.

I am also aware that the approach of a direct control over units/ armies is prevailing in EU series and we can not count on Victoria/HoI frontlines style thus, solution implemented in Imperator would be perfect compromise. Just please do not force me to give orders to dozens of armies in late game or loop-chase the low morale armies in the map with itsy-bitsy provinces.





Yes, capital siege system or different ways to calculate the warscore are always welcomed and could help to reduce micro.



Why so much hate? I could also say ’get out’ to all who are for automated trade or automated production methods in Victoria 3 but appealing more players is great for the game in terms of its longevity which IMO is always crucial if we all want good and polished product.

Please note that subjective ’arguments’ used in Victoria 3 against micro in economy could be also used in EU5 against micro in warfare and below is a brief list of examples:
1. Micro in warfare is tedious and consequently, boring. Totally subjective argument but still present in the discussion on micro in Victoria 3.
2. PDX games are grand strategy games so, controlling or overseeing tiny elements required to run a country (in this case, army) is suitable for a RTS genre (e.g. Command and Conquer series).
3. You are a ‘spirit of a country‘ thus, you should make only general and most crucial decision without direct impact on the country (in terms of warfare, such as selecting only general directions for an attack or choosing generals with specific, suited to you stats, or with specific approach to combat, like more offensive or defensive combat style).
4. COOKIE CLICKER etc. No comments.

Tedious and boring is the last thing that comes to my mind when I think about HoI, the supreme micro warfare. Similar about 30 years war in eu4.

 

[Eltener]

I'd like an I:R style automate button just so I wouldn't have to bother with fighting nations I'm guaranteed to win against with little effort. I do the same with HOI4 where I only bother microing in MP or if I start seeing red bubbles

 

[Wagner Joy Division]

appealing more players is great for the game in terms of its longevity

Victoria 3 lost all Victoria II hardcore fans and so far has the lowest playercount of all Paradox games. You are a minority. Go enjoy mobile games and cookie clickers.

Micro in warfare is tedious and consequently, boring. Totally subjective argument but still present in the discussion on micro in Victoria 3.

Tedious and boring is preferrable to being non-functional.

PDX games are grand strategy games so, controlling or overseeing tiny elements required to run a country (in this case, army) is suitable for a RTS genre (e.g. Command and Conquer series).

Victoria 3 is not a grand strategy game - it is a mobile game with a GSG cover

Please, do not infect EUV with bad designs from failed games. Failed games are here for a reason - before Crusader Kings 2 we had Sengoku. Before HoIIV we had HoI3. They exist to figure that some designs and ideas does not work. Victoria 3 is a huge example, teaching us that shitting on old fans results only in a slowly dying game. Or that people who actually play Paradox games prefer moving little toy soldiers. Along with adding things that nobody asked for and ignnoring the community and then backtracking when problem becomes a glaring gamebreaking issue.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Well, I think Imperator: Rome failed for different reason than for it having army automation.

And Imperator Rome not being on his screenshot shows he wasnt exactly talking about that game.

 

[Wagner Joy Division]

Tedious and boring is the last thing that comes to my mind when I think about HoI, the supreme micro warfare. Similar about 30 years war in eu4.

Do not be so harsh. Some people do not want to move toy soldiers. They want to see building being built and red go green. And then wait for buildings to be built. And then wait for buildings to be built. And then wait for buildings to be built. .And then you naval invade Great Britain as Madagaskar and they capitulate, while their Quing allies lose all warscore.
By some miraclous coincidence, said people happen to be a minority as majority prefers to play games with toy soldiers...

 

[ero_sk]

Some automation to warfare? Definitely. With the degree of automation best given for the player to control. Using Vicky 3 as a reference example? Please...

 

[MaXiMuS-54]

Army sizes were quite small during this period especially with the black death so It shouldn't really be an issue

 

[Wagner Joy Division]

Army sizes were quite small during this period especially with the black death so It shouldn't really be an issue

EU neved had issue with unrealistic army sizes. It is better to have million-strong army in napoleonic period than to constantly realisticly lose 50% of your army to diseases. Fun>realism.

 

[Fletz]

I am also afraid of a too micromgmtheavy warfare if army get ordered/moved on location level.... that was okay and nice for me when PdxGames had provinces like in EU3/4 or HoI2 but Imperator was already too much and HoI3 was also hell.

But I also dont want it like Vic3 does it.... I would prefer that I order armys on higher level manually (from province to province) but they get simulated and actually move on location level and in which location exactly a battle happens is decided by the generals.

I dont know i I explain it understandable but I already tried it once and hope the best for project Ceasar:

Army movement - how or on which level?

Will armys be commanded on location-, province- or area-level? Will it be more like Imperator:Rome or like HoI2/EU4/etc. or even like on state-level like in Vic3 (i guess not). I am asking because as much as I like the direct control of armies I...

forum.paradoxplaza.com