I think that has more to do with a sizable chunk of the audience for this game just hating Vic3 and wanting to talk about that more than the PC and no amount of clarifying language would change that. For example, the person who posted all the screenshots (including HoI4) apparently unaware that HoI4's battleplanner is the the same kind of automation most people in this thread who want automation are asking for.
Battleplenner does not prevent you from manually controlling each and every division. difference between HoIIV battleplanner and Victoria 3 warfare are tremendous and uncomparable.
We need to stop talking about "this period" and refering to 1300s or 1400s. The game will cover 500 years so anyone talking about any mechanics with the first 100 or 200 years in mind makes a mistake.
What's funny is that statements like that do not make sense for the early game either. In the first Vijayanagar-Bahmani war, the Vijayanagar kings mustered an army of either 200,000 or a million men (I am understandably partial to the former estimate). Even if you assume that 50% of this army would be made up of administrators and camp followers, that still leaves an extremely large force of a 100,000 fighting men.
By 200 years you should already be powerful enough to deal with issues, if you're lazy in EU4 you could just make vassal marches to siege everything down
I'm very sure that your specific gripes with the warfare system are the entire reason that people don't like Victoria 3, and not the numerous terrible and buggy DLC releases or performance issues, of course, but humor me for a second:
That makes 1 of us then, because I do not, nor do I even think warfare is the biggest problem with that failure of a game.
It would be. The fact is we know that provinces in PCaesar will have a provincial capital, just like Imperator, and it has already been confirmed that forts will work somewhat close to Imperator style; so siege every fort+provincial capital to take control over the entire province. That will cut down on the carpet siege issue quite substantially.
I did, yes. If you maybe want to go and read what I said for the very first time;
You will see that my first message was being 100% facetious.
I was thinking more of this meme when I posted "Get out"
This was their argument. They're not arguing that you should have no control over your armies, they're arguing that they want the option to give an order to an army and simply leave them to it. Frankly, that would be massively useful. A lot of wars in EU4 will feature one or two stacks doing actual combat while a single stack focuses on sieging down some random co-beligerent. Having to manually go back and forth between the stack doing battles that actually require my attention and the stack doing literal grunt work is deeply boring.
... But, you seem to be assuming that they're arguing you should have no control over your armies whatsoever. Is it because they said the words "Victoria 3"? Who knows. Either way, it's not what they argued for, and pretending otherwise is pretty strange.
This is the system used in Crusader Kings, and no, it does not fix the carpet sieging problem at all. In fact, carpet sieging is more tedious than it is in EU4, and I think the reason people don't notice it is because wars can be ended instantly by capturing the enemy king, which you'll tend to do for larger war goals. I don't think carpet sieging will be as annoying in Project Caesar as it is in CK3, but the truth is that there's never a world in which moving through an enemy's provinces and waiting for a bar to fill is something that I particularly care to do manually.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about game mechanics, and some people are only thinking of them in terms of first 100-200 years. In this particular context, I was referring to your claim that armies in that time period where relatively small, while this thread is about warfare automation in general. So what time period you were referring to?
You did come across as incredibly rude and nasty. I've noticed this a lot with your comments, if anyone is too critical of Imperator or posts anything remotely favorable towards Vicky 3 it seems like you get personally offended, turning into a mean, argumentative troll who outright dismisses any opinions that differ from your own. I rarely post on the forums these days, and didn't intend to post here. But I was reading through this thread thinking, "why is he always so rude and mean in his responses" and then saw another person state the same thing I was thinking. You quickly dismissed their comment, which is your prerogative, but I might as well express my agreement, as I wish you would tone it down a bit and calm down. There's no reason to be so rude on these forums. And when joking in text, it helps to express this in some fashion, as otherwise it just comes across as mean spirited. Just my unsolicited two cents...
No, we just do not want fundamentally bad Victroia 3 designs and mechanics to soil Europa Universalis V.
I just hope the military AI will be up to the task. It's all fine and dandy if you can place stacks under AI control, but if it ends up running off to Siberia (extreme, but relevant complaint from EU4's AI behaviour), or be afraid of rebel stacks because you have no general assigned, then it's a wasted feature.
