It's already confirmed it's not gonna happen in Vicky 3's style. I can imagine some automation like expanding EU4's rebel suppression and auto-siege functions, but outright automation of warfare won't be in the game.
what kinda automation do you suggest? do you have examples?
I would expect project Caesar to get similar automation to Imperator, where if I remember correctly, you can hand over stacks for the AI to control.
It will not occur as in Vicky3.
But perhaps you can give army-stacks orders, like you do with vassels in EU4. With modifications such systems could go a long way and provide an adaptable compromise between total micro-mangement and total automation.
--------------------------------------
We do know almost nothing about war. Perhaps army-composition could be a more vital, given that armies need good (and therefore production-methods / trade in order to provide those).
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.
You seem to not make a difference between location and province, where several lication are a province and that's locations we will have much more, not provinces I believe
And I doubt we will have to carpet siege every location, it can work on a per province basis where you only need to control province capital/fortress to capture every location of a province
That's said, some automation can be good, especially when you have multiple fronts to take care of
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.
Yes, capital siege system or different ways to calculate the warscore are always welcomed and could help to reduce micro.
Get out.
Skill issue?
Nah. More like 99.99999%.
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.
.png){kind=avatar}
