• 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.
Sad but true. Lack of events = lack of feel of accomplishment. Since there aren´t critical events and most of the economy is automated, in the end the only goal is becoming number 1, and since that WILL involve war, if the war aspect of the game is subpar, then the whole experience will be damaged. There´s too few difference between trying to play the liberal, education-focused and the conservative absolutist country. Not that Vicky 1 was perfect, but considering this game is released 5 years later, I´d expect improvements.

To be fair, speaking for myself, I'm not sure what they can do to make the economy and politics as interesting as war.
 
now, I may be completely wrong about this, and if I am, please correct me, but as time went on and tech got better the size of units got smaller and smaller, from needs just overwhelming numbers in the dark ages to modern day where a squad of 6 or 8 special forces can end a war before it even starts.
I would say it went the other way. Before and in the Napoleon war you had small professional armies, wich had a small battles. But in the Napoleon war they started with conscription and army size grew fast untill you had enormous armies in ww1 that had battles where half a million died. A good example is that Napoleons Grande armee that invaded Russia was about 400,000 men large. While the French force in ww1 was 8 million men large. One of the reasons was conscription, but supply techs also affected the size of the armies. At first armies had to live of the land, greatly putting a restriction on the unit size. But when supply logistics evolved, armies could grow.
So i would say that in short, better techs=bigger units.

As for 6-8 special forces?. What war is that, against Andorra?
 
Last edited:
I agree that the combat system is sort of broken, but for the most part I believe it's due to the lacking combat AI, which spreads out stacks so as to make it easy but annoying for the player to kill them. I've also found managing armies occupying territory to be a hassle, perhaps an automated 'occupy land' button would be appropriate. Tanks and Aeroplanes need an overhaul as well, considering that they don't seem to be much more powerful than regular infantry.

Naval combat is terrible, and the primary purpose of a powerful navy, blockading ports, is pointless as blockades don't do anything to strangle the enemy's economy.

EDIT: I remember reading one of the V2 dev diaries, and it said that blockades decrease the value and increase the cost of all foreign goods for the blockaded country. Can anyone confirm this?
 
Naval combat is terrible, and the primary purpose of a powerful navy, blockading ports, is pointless as blockades don't do anything to strangle the enemy's economy.
Not only blockading, but also protecting you home country. Having a powerful navy can be important for a weak GP. Playing as Sweden I have won against Portugal, Prussia and Portugal just by using my Navy. Blockading them will just give you a WP or a small province, but it's better than being cut down to size. And having a large navy on my naval border also prevents them from invading me.
But i agree that naval combat needs some work done, a option to have the ship or fleet patrol a area would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Would attack-move really work on game scale and will it give us lengthy trench warfare?

I find that I just don't want to fight wars in V2. It doesn't give you as much gain as in other games. Colonial posessions are fine, but fighting equal is boring and not so profitable. Also I don't see how my skill affects warfare. Usually you crush/stop enemy main army and then catch all those small capturing forces. Then you slowly occupy enemy till he sees that there won't be miracle and sudden army of heavenly ponies won't come to help him. Or vice versa, of course, though I tend to agree on his terms unless he has second war. I'd suggest to automate this but it seems like player won't have much to do in the game if he has liberal government. Except moving sliders, of course.
 
Fighting equal IS profitable, unless you´re fighting Russia or China. Loss of any major region (I mean, anything with more than 500k pop, specially if national culture) is a serious blow. Examples: Bohemia from Austria, Silesia from Prussia, Barcelona from Spain etc etc. Once you win that war, for all intents and purposes they will never beat you 1 on 1 again, ever.
 
All I can wish for is combat as good as in the Vic1. Current system is terrible.
 
All I can wish for is combat as good as in the Vic1. Current system is terrible.

I do wonder why they changed it so much. Well, considering Vicky 2 launch having a military AI capable of using the finesse of the Vicky 1 system might not have been optimal. Vic 1 system was basically the HOI 1 system right? I didn't play HOI 1 enough to know. But it would be great if you could have that system. Same attack in province as now, but bonus for attacking from many directions and encircling. I wold say that it would be the perfect compromise.
 
Firstly, we have a thread like this every month. It starts well, then quickly dies as people realise that a HOI style combat system simply doesn't fit into most of the period covered by the game.

The creation and optional automation of your OOB would fit great into any time period. That's my #1 complaint anyways. The tedious and mindless work of making hundreds of simple combat movement decisions could be handled by the AI.
 
I think it would be better to see how Napoleon's Campaigns II's combat system works out before doing changes to the Victoria II combat system.

As the system is, anyhow, I'm happy with it, the only think I would change is perhaps making it so armies can't retreat to hostile provinces.
 
To be fair, speaking for myself, I'm not sure what they can do to make the economy and politics as interesting as war.

There is a lot missing, actually. Especially the diplomatic part of the game. You really can't do much diplomacy at all, it is in fact a step back from Ricky.
 
There is a lot missing, actually. Especially the diplomatic part of the game. You really can't do much diplomacy at all, it is in fact a step back from Ricky.

In what way? There were no SOIs in Ricky. No tools for soft imperialism. You could turn GPs into satellites at the peace table. :wacko: Wars could be scripted via event, even if the conditions made no sense (Crimean War?) Hell, you could fight wars for whatever reason you wanted and it didn't make a difference when it came time to demand concessions at the peace table.
 
There is a lot missing, actually. Especially the diplomatic part of the game. You really can't do much diplomacy at all, it is in fact a step back from Ricky.

It could learn a lot about diplomacy from pride of nations. Crises, etc, would make the game way more fun.

And I want an expansion about military and diplomacy too.
 
In what way? There were no SOIs in Ricky. No tools for soft imperialism. You could turn GPs into satellites at the peace table. :wacko: Wars could be scripted via event, even if the conditions made no sense (Crimean War?) Hell, you could fight wars for whatever reason you wanted and it didn't make a difference when it came time to demand concessions at the peace table.

Wars can still be scripted by event, thankfully.

But I think he meant the possibility to trade provinces and technology, both of which would be great to have back in some form.
 
Wars can still be scripted by event, thankfully.

But I think he meant the possibility to trade provinces and technology, both of which would be great to have back in some form.

But we don't generally script wars by event anymore, except for diplomatic mission under siege kinds of things and the ACW (which is a really weird case). Thankfully, no more insane Crimean Wars that make no contextual sense. (Sure, let's attack the Ottoman Empire, and let's defend it from the Russians, even though we both love each other and hate Austria. Great moves, UK and Russia!)

I agree with Flame that PoN's crisis mechanic is a step forward from Vic2 current model of diplomacy. I suppose it would be bad form for Paradox to outright steal a game design feature from someone they do business with, but if they do another expansion, I'd really like to see something like that implemented. :)
 
Anyway, I'm curious to hear what you think of the combat system and my suggestions as well as the other peoples.

Personally I don't mind the combat system itself, and I don't think movement being attack fits pre-WWI. The main problem I have with V2 wars is the AI being too easy to suck into a massive battle and wipe out, as various people here have said. Aside from that, the UI should be improved so you see things like forts in combat and recon vs dig in values. Finally, "sieges" could be faster, although I did nerf the occupation time effect of forts majorly in AHD already. But if I was to overhaul anything, it would be naval combat, it should be a lot more interesting in this game.

Anyway, not promising we'll do anything like that, it's just my thoughts.
 
I would like a situation whereby the different units have more clearly defined fuctions - I know they get different stats and so on but in the end you just end up stacking them and throwing them into a meatgrinder.
 
Last edited:
Would it be an idea to change the 1 army per province rule to 1 army per state? It would reduce the annoying whack-a-3000 man army wars.