• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #23 - Fronts and Generals

16_9 (1).jpg

Hello and welcome! Today we will dig into the core mechanics of land warfare, including Fronts, Generals, Battalions, Mobilization, and more. But let’s take a moment first to recall the pillars of warfare in Victoria 3 from last week’s diary, which should be considered prerequisite reading to this one.

  • War is a Continuation of Diplomacy
  • War is Strategic
  • War is Costly
  • Preparation is Key
  • Navies Matter
  • War Changes

Before we get started I want to point out that a few of the mechanics I will be mentioning below are currently still under implementation in the current build. While development diary screenshots should never be taken as fully representative of the final product, this is especially true in this case. In some cases images will be artistic mockups and visual targets, and in other cases very rough in-game screenshots that will be revised before release. The reason for this is simply because, as we have stressed previously in these dev diaries, Victoria 3 is a game about economics, politics, and diplomacy first and foremost. War is a very important supporting system to all those three which tie them together, but we needed to make sure those three aspects were mature enough before we put the final touches on the military system. Furthermore, being a drastic divergence from how warfare works in all other Paradox games, these systems have required a lot of time in the oven to feel as fully baked as the others. Once we are closer to release we’ll make sure to update you on any revisions, and release more finalized in-game screenshots!

First I want to present the concept of Fronts. In Victoria 3, rather than manually moving armies around the map, you assign troops (via Generals, as we will see later) to the border provinces where two combatants clash. All combat takes place on these Fronts, where a victorious outcome consists of moving the Front into your enemy’s territory while preventing incursions into your own.

Fronts are created automatically as soon as two countries begin to oppose each other in a Diplomatic Play, and consist of all provinces along the border of control between those two countries. Therefore a Front always has one country on either side, but it is possible for Generals from several countries to be assigned to the same Front.

Let’s take a look at a screenshot from the current build of the game:

An early draft view of the Texas Utah Front. This Front belongs to the Texan Revolutionary War of 1835, which is in full swing on the game’s start date. Two Texan Generals are assigned to this Front, Samuel Houston with an Advance Order and William Travis with a Defense Order. On Mexico’s side, José de Romay is advancing with 10 Battalions. The four stars on either side indicates relative average fighting skill compared to the world’s best - here Mexico and Texas are tied with 40 Offense and 35 Defense each. From Mexico’s perspective this Front has a slight advantage at the moment and indeed one battle on this Front has already been won by them.
dd23_1.png

As mentioned at the top, these visuals - and all other images in this diary - are far from complete! We have many parameters left to expose, more UI layout to do, and more visual effects to add before release. Everything you are seeing today is only to give you a better idea of the mechanics, but is in heavy revision as we speak and will look different on release. As such it is not to be taken as representative of what you will see in the final product.

The health and status of your Fronts is a primary indicator of how well the war is going for you. Do you have more troops on the Front than your enemy does? That’s pretty good. Have you advanced it far into enemy territory? Great. Are your soldiers there demoralized and dying in droves from attrition? Double-plus ungood.

In a large end-game conflict you might have hundreds of thousands - possibly even millions - of soldiers in active service, which is a lot to keep track of. The number of active Fronts, however, is likely to be much more manageable. The design philosophy here is the same as with the economic Pop model. Our aim is to make the game playable and well-paced, without requiring frequent pausing, on every scale while retaining the detail and integrity of the Pop simulation. For warfare, the scale ranges from a small border skirmish between minor nations in single-player to a massive multiplayer world war involving every Great Power. Using the Front system we can account for every individual Serviceman and Officer in meticulous detail while giving the player a high-level strategic interface to monitor and manipulate. Much like with the economic interface of Buildings or the political interface of Interest Groups, from this Front view you can drill down through your Generals all the way to the individual Pops that actually do the fighting if you want to.

After a particularly punishing battle the Texan Barracks are desperately trying to recruit replacements to send to the front.
dd23_2.png

Generals are characters who command Servicemen and Officers into battle on Fronts. Every country will start the game with one or a few Generals - many of them straight out of the history books - and can recruit more as needed.

Generals are recruited from Strategic Regions, and gain command of as many locally available troops in that region that their Command Limit allows. Command Limit is determined by their Rank, which ranges from 1-star to 5-star. If several Generals are headquartered in the same Strategic Region, the troops are split up between them proportional to their Command Limit as well. Military operations can be complex to manage, and to model this every General costs a certain amount of Bureaucracy to maintain. You can promote Generals freely, but while higher-ranking Generals can effectively command more troops they also cost more Bureaucracy.

Like other characters, such as Heads of States and Interest Group Leaders, Generals have a set of Traits that determine their abilities and weaknesses. Admirals, their naval counterparts, work the same way. These Traits determine everything about how the characters function and what bonuses and penalties they confer onto their troops, their Front, and the battles they participate in.

All characters have a Personality Trait, with different effects depending on what role they fill. For example, a Cruel General might cause more deaths among enemy casualties, leaving fewer enemy Pops to recover through battlefield medicine or return home as Dependents, while a Charismatic General might keep their troops’ Morale high even when supplies run short.

Characters can also gain Skill Traits which are unique to their role. Generals may develop skills like Woodland Terrain Expert that increases their troops’ efficiency when fighting in Forest or Jungle, or Engineer that increases their troops’ Defense. Freshly recruited Generals start with one of these but can gain more as they age and gain experience. Many Skill traits have several tiers as well, so Generals that remain active across many campaigns may deepen their abilities over time.

Characters may also gain Conditions due to events or simply the passage of time. These often affect the character’s health, but might also influence their popularity or ability to carry out their basic duties. Shellshocked is a classic example of a Condition your General might gain.

This fellow (whose full name I refuse to write out) has a Direct personality, prefers to command troops in Open Terrain, and is an expert Surveyor of the battlefield. He’s also become Wounded, probably as a result of some recent skirmish.
dd23_3.png

Like all characters, Generals and Admirals are also aligned with an Interest Group - which is often, but not always, the Armed Forces. For Heads of States and Interest Group Leaders the impact of this political allegiance is obvious, but why (you may ask) would this matter for Generals and Admirals?

In addition to industrialization and revolutions, the 19th Century was also known for its revolving door between military and political office. Often given assignments far from the capital with very limited communications, Generals and Admirals were given access to enormous man- and firepower and sent off with little possibility of oversight to see to the nation’s best interests. This autonomy not only granted them considerable geopolitical power while in the field, but also made them extremely popular figures once returning home from a successful campaign. As such, in Victoria 3 your decisions on who to recruit, promote, and retire - which should ideally be based on meritocratic concerns - sometimes have to be tempered also by concerns for internal power balance and stability due to the impact Generals can have on the country’s Interest Groups.

First off, the character contributes directly to their Interest Group’s Political Strength, which as we know determines their Clout. The amount provided is dependent on their rank, so granting a promotion to a promising young General will also increase the influence their Interest Group wields.

Second, if a General is becoming a little too big for their boots - or perhaps crippled by adverse Conditions, like that 79-year old fossil who just won’t leave active service despite senility and various ailments - and you want to force them into retirement so someone else can take command of their troops, their Interest Group’s Approval will be impacted. Understandably so, since you just robbed them of some political power!

Third, and most important, if an Interest Group becomes revolutionary - which will be the subject of another dev diary - their Generals and Admirals will take up against you. If you’ve put all your eggs in the basket of some farmer’s boy who turned out to be a strategic genius and you suffer an agrarian uprising, you may end up fighting a rebellion against that same brilliant commander using fresh recruits still wet behind the ears.

Commanders can also be the focal points of special events, caused either of their own volition or by a situation you have put them in. Your decisions in these events may end up affecting your country in any number of ways.
dd23_4.png

Both Generals and Admirals can be given Orders which they are obliged to try to carry out. We will go over Admiral Orders next week. The Orders you can give Generals are quite straightforward:

Stand By: the General returns home from their current Front, dispersing their troops into their home region’s Garrison forces to slow down any enemy incursions
Advance Front: the General gathers their troops, moves to the target Front, and tries to advance it by launching attacks at the enemy
Defend Front: like Advance Front except the General never advances, instead focusing only on intercepting and repelling enemy forces

These orders may end up executed in different ways depending on the General’s Traits, resulting in different troop compositions and battle conditions during the operations. For example, a Reckless General may provide his Battalions with increased Offense during advances, but fewer of his casualties taken will recover after the battle. Further, his recklessness may lead to making a Risky Maneuver during a battle, which could prove a brilliant or catastrophic move. If you want to play it safer you could assign a Cautious but well-supplied General to a frontline, even though that may be less prestigious.

Generals charged with advancing a Front will favor marching towards and conquering states marked as war goals, but their route there may be more or less circuitous depending on how the war is progressing and possibly other factors such as the local terrain. Other such designated priority targets, which the player could set themselves to alter the flow of battle, is a feature we’re looking into adding to represent strategies and events such as General Sherman’s march to the sea. This is not currently in the game but is something we think would add an interesting dimension to the strategic gameplay, so something like this is likely to make its way in sooner or later!

Fronts targeted to Advance or Defend can also be a Front belonging to a co-belligerent, as long as you can reach it by land or sea. For example, if Prussia supports Finland in a war of independence against Russia, they could send one or two Generals to advance their own Front against Russia and another to help defend the Finnish-Russian Front, ensuring Finland can stay in the war for as long as possible while simultaneously striking at Russia’s own war support. To do so it needs to send its troops helping Finland across the Baltic, which require naval support we will learn more about next week.

Generals cannot be given Orders unless they are Mobilizing. In peacetime, all Generals will be demobilized, doing whatever it is 19th Century Generals do in peacetime (probably drink copious amounts of wine, have sordid affairs, and plot against their governments) while their troops are on standby doing occasional drills to keep readiness up. As soon as a Diplomatic Play starts, and for as long as the country is at war after that, players have the option to Mobilize any and all of their Generals, which will increase the consumption of military buildings (guns, ammo, artillery, etc) and start the process of getting that General’s troops ready for frontline action. The speed by which troops are readied is dependent on the Infrastructure in their local state, so high-infrastructure states can mobilize many more troops quickly while low-infrastructure, rural states might take much longer to gather and organize a lot of manpower.

This means when you choose to start mobilizing, and how many Generals and Battalions you choose to mobilize, will matter a lot to your initial success in the war - and as everyone knows, the first few battles could well prove decisive if the other party is taken by surprise. The magnitude of mobilization becomes immediately visible to the other participants in a Diplomatic Play as soon as the decision is taken. Choosing to mobilize big and early in a Diplomatic Play tells the other participants two things: one, you’re serious, and two, you’re hedging your bets that this won’t end peacefully. This in turn can trigger a cascade of mobilizations, and before you know it, a peaceful solution is no longer on the table. Choosing to hold off on mobilization until late means you save precious money and lives until it’s needed, but may cost you the war if that’s what it comes down to.

Mobilized Generals cannot be demobilized until the war is over. Once you’ve committed your troops to the war, they expect to be in the field and well-supplied until a peace is signed. If getting what you want out of a war takes a long time, your expenses may eventually begin to exceed the value of the potential prize.

In-progress artistic mockup of an Army overview, listing all your Generals with shortcut actions. In this case only General Long-Name has been mobilized (activated), preparing his men to go to the front at the expense of increased goods consumption and attrition.
dd23_5.png

Your land army is composed of Battalions, which are groups of 1000 Workforce with Servicemen or Officer Professions. Like all other Pops these work in Buildings, in this case either Barracks or Conscription Centers. The difference between these are that Barracks are constructed manually and house the country’s standing army, which are considered permanent troops, while Conscription Centers are activated as-needed during a Diplomatic Play or War and recruit civilians into temporary military service. In addition Barracks have a wider selection of Production Methods to choose from, particularly high-tech late-game Production Methods. How your army is divided between professional and conscripted soldiers depends on your Army Model Law, which we will cover in more detail in a few weeks.

The Production Methods in these two buildings work like other Production Methods do: they employ Pops of certain Professions, and consume goods to provide a set of effects. In this case they employ Servicemen and Officers in proportions depending on your organization style, consume a number of military goods, and in return provide Battalions with different combat statistics such as Offense (indicating how useful they are during an advance) and Defense (indicating how useful they are when defending against an advance).

Since military buildings work according to the same logic as other buildings, such as factories and plantations, all core mechanics such as Market Access, Goods Shortages, Qualifications, etcetera apply to them in exactly the same way. If one of your Barracks’ Battalions are supported by Armored Divisions but you cannot supply it with enough Tanks, recruitment will slow down to painful levels and both Offense and Defense will suffer. If you don’t have enough qualifying Officers the number of Battalions the building can actually create will be throttled. Just because you have researched a new type of artillery piece or a more efficient way of organizing your army doesn’t mean you’ll be ready to modernize straight away, and if your local infrastructure suffers the acquisition cost for the requisite goods could reach astronomical levels.

Upgrades to Production Methods in military buildings take considerable time to take effect. While any goods consumption changes happen immediately, improvements to combat effectiveness takes some time to realize. Keeping military spending low during peacetime by reverting your military to pre-Napoleonic warfare doctrines might be pleasant for your treasury but less great for both your war readiness and Prestige, the latter which is directly impacted both by how large and how advanced your army is.

In-progress artistic mockup of a Battalion/Garrison-focused list. Illustrations are selected for a collection of similar Battalions based on dominant Battalion culture (defined by the Pops in the military building) and tech level (defined by the Production Methods in use in the military building). Collections can be expanded to display the full list. From there the player can click through from a given Battalion to the military building supporting it.
dd23_6.png

All this leads us to Battles. Advancing Generals will eventually gather enough troops to launch an attack into one of the enemy-controlled provinces along the Front, which will be intercepted by defending troops and possibly an enemy General. In short, a battle then takes place over some number of days until one force has taken enough casualties and morale damage to retreat. We will go over in more detail how battles play out in a future diary, but suffice to say for now that a bunch of Battalions go in along with a number of different combat-related stats and conditions, some of them related to the General and their troops, others due to conditions like province terrain and chance. If the advancing side wins, they capture a number of provinces depending on how large their win was, what sort of technology they use, how dispersed or concentrated the enemy forces are across the region, and so on. If the defending side wins, they repel the advancers and will likely be able to launch their counter-attack at a nice advantage.

An item of note here is that just because one General might command 100 Battalions while the other side’s General might only command 20 does not mean every battle outcome on this Front is predetermined. A single Front can cover a large stretch of land and just because a General with 100 Battalions is “on a Front” does not mean they travel with 100,000 individuals in their encampment; those Battalions are considered to be spread out, simultaneously planning their next advance while intercepting enemy advances, and as such the force size each side in the battle can bring to bear may vary. Furthermore, Battalions under the command of other friendly Generals on the same Front may be temporarily borrowed for a certain battle, and even Battalions without mobilized Generals (considered part of the region’s Garrison) can be used to defend against incursions. However, Battalions not under the direct command of the General in charge of the battle do not gain the benefit of his Traits.

This variable sizing of battles, particularly when combined with mobilization costs, counteracts the otherwise dominant strategy of “doomstacking” and make wars feel more like a tug-of-war than a race. Each side can choose to either try to gain marginal advantage over the other on the cheap, or spare no expense to increase their chances for an expedient victory, with any position on this spectrum being a valid option in different situations.

We’ll get deeper into some of the combat statistics that go into resolving a battle in a few weeks when we explore military buildings in more detail, and we will talk more about how Battles play out and look on the map in a diary a little further down the line. We’re anxious to show them to you, but need to give these visuals a little more attention first!

That’s land warfare in a nutshell. In the two upcoming dev diaries we will go over the major role that navies play in this system as well as the economic and human costs of war, which are closely interrelated. For now I want to close by saying that we appreciate your patience in waiting for details on warfare mechanics! The reasons for why we’ve chosen to diverge so far from the classic GSG military formula would be hard to grasp until you’ve seen how the different economic, political, and diplomatic systems function.

Next week we will talk more about warfare mechanics as we get into how your navy plays into all this. Until then!
 

Attachments

  • 16_9.jpg
    16_9.jpg
    1,1 MB · Views: 0
  • dd23_1.png
    dd23_1.png
    2,6 MB · Views: 0
  • dd23_2.png
    dd23_2.png
    748 KB · Views: 0
  • dd23_3.png
    dd23_3.png
    321,4 KB · Views: 0
  • dd23_4.png
    dd23_4.png
    849,2 KB · Views: 0
  • dd23_5.png
    dd23_5.png
    2 MB · Views: 0
  • dd23_6.png
    dd23_6.png
    2,4 MB · Views: 0
  • milpad.jpg
    milpad.jpg
    3,9 MB · Views: 0
  • Thumbnail.jpg
    Thumbnail.jpg
    315,3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 407Like
  • 247Love
  • 217
  • 47
  • 22
  • 5Haha
Reactions:

Devilscreed95

Recruit
1 Badges
Mar 19, 2020
2
8
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
Love the idea of more specific targets decided by the players, please implement this! There are tons of real-world examples for such targets being set by leaders like Lincoln's repeated orders to take Richmond, Britain's East Coast Campaign during the First Opium War, or Germany's whole strategic approach to WW1 being "take Paris and we win".

Even ignoring the player getting more agency with this system, the increase in realism alone would be worth it.
 
  • 7
Reactions:

Cagallo

Captain
36 Badges
Mar 7, 2017
409
951
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Magicka 2
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
Well, if you haven't realised, the majority of people disagreeing with this 'innovation' are the same people who are supporting Paradox since day one. To answer your previous patronising question, I started with EU2 years ago and have supported their games ever since. And I STRONGLY suspect most people who are thoroughly disappointed with the 'innovation' have been playing Paradox games for years. And we feel the game is going in a very VERY wrong direction. Obviously I won't be buying it, despite putting money aside for a new laptop to be able to handle it (true story)
Usually this type of players are the least prone to new systems.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Elminster12

Second Lieutenant
73 Badges
Jan 3, 2008
167
142
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
I am glad that I will have to worry about who my generals are and engage with them existing and having political clout, rather than rerolling them until I get one that has good traits and just using those ones while all the bad generals sit in a barracks somewhere, gambling and drinking.
I very much like the idea that maybe leaving Failson McMoron and Senile Codger III employed might be more expedient than replacing them right up until I have a war to fight and they're in charge of it.
Really, the thing I find most frustrating about EUIV is managing a huge war with dozens of armies and Benny Hilling AI stacks, so I'm glad that'll be some one else's problem.
 
  • 5Like
  • 5
Reactions:

Cagallo

Captain
36 Badges
Mar 7, 2017
409
951
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Magicka 2
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
I quite like what I'm seeing here. If I could make a change, it would only be to add a few more options beyond "attack" and "defend". I'd like to see the following :
* Advance: focus on gaining territory
* Defend : focus on preserving territory
* destroy enemies : focus on attacking enemies, but avoid unnecessary advancing into enemy territory
* preserve strength : focus on preserving your own strength by avoiding all but the most guaranteed battles, even if it means ceding territory
* Guerrilla : focus on damaging enemy logistics while avoiding direct battles(good if you're much weaker)

A slightly finer control over how your generals are fighting would make the system perfect.
This. Fits well into the new system.
 
  • 9
Reactions:

Tocon

Corporal
87 Badges
Dec 8, 2014
46
443
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
  • Age of Wonders III
1) I have frontline on the border with country X, a couple tiles behind said frontline there is a mountain range, or, idk a river. Does it mean that during the war itself my troops will actually have to bloody themselves out on not defendable terrain instead of just pulling behind to these mountains/rivers? I cannot just tell them that the defense line is... well... there? Is there any way for a player to influence decision like this? By all accounts setting out general defensive line is about as strategical as it gets or does it mean that I will have lose a lot of troops before actually reaching these defensive positions?

2) Is there anything that would stop me from essentially rerolling my generals en masse in favour of getting one with the best trait?
 
  • 7
Reactions:

Xodion413

Recruit
45 Badges
Nov 11, 2021
3
19
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
I just want to say: Devs, please include the option to set specific custom war focuses for generals at release. If you're worried about it being too micro, set it on a cooldown timer or something. We need to to be able to target our enemies' industries. It would make this system perfect.
 
  • 6
Reactions:

Memnon

Czar of Texas
4 Badges
Jan 2, 2004
3.385
200
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
What we're considering adding is a method of prioritizing the various targets in the war, and setting custom targets, on a national (not Front- or General-) level. What we need to be careful with here is to not add methods of control that make the player technically able to control with precision how Generals act in every moment by microing their priorities.
One option for this issue is to allow players to create a General Staff system, designed to support (and control, to a certain extent) the individual will of field generals. This could be one of the Army-related laws, for example.

The Prussians famously invented this system to help exert central political/military control by a merit-based officer corps over the aristocratic generals who still had command of field forces for political reasons. If a general was defeated, he might not want to advance further or might believe his honor required a surrender or a withdrawal; but his Chief of Staff, assigned from the General Staff office, could push him to continue to execute the political plans for the war. In the event the General refused, the Chief of Staff could appeal to higher headquarters if the General was not putting the county’s political objectives first.

In the game, implementing this law would upset the aristocracy (for example) who traditionally provides the generals and would increase bureaucracy costs, but would also increase quality and control of the armed forces in the field. Chiefs of Staff could be modeled as junior generals with their own traits that compounded with or modified the senior generals’ traits. And with time a Chief of Staff could become the senior general as well, possibly even gaining some of the traits of the senior generals they served under.

Choosing not to implement a general staff system would appease the aristocracy and keep costs down, but might make it more likely that the generals in the field make decisions that do not always align completely with the direction the player has given them.
 
  • 16Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:

Druplesnubb

Lt. General
42 Badges
May 14, 2013
1.380
1.105
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Magicka
  • Imperator: Rome
An item of note here is that just because one General might command 100 Battalions while the other side’s General might only command 20 does not mean every battle outcome on this Front is predetermined. A single Front can cover a large stretch of land and just because a General with 100 Battalions is “on a Front” does not mean they travel with 100,000 individuals in their encampment; those Battalions are considered to be spread out, simultaneously planning their next advance while intercepting enemy advances, and as such the force size each side in the battle can bring to bear may vary. Furthermore, Battalions under the command of other friendly Generals on the same Front may be temporarily borrowed for a certain battle, and even Battalions without mobilized Generals (considered part of the region’s Garrison) can be used to defend against incursions. However, Battalions not under the direct command of the General in charge of the battle do not gain the benefit of his Traits.
What does this mean? Like if a general with 100 battallions have them spread out in five different parts of the front, wouldn't the enemy general with 20 battallions have them spread out over the front as well? Otherwise, wouldn't the front be completely pushed back? Also, what decides how many of his troops a general will have with him for a given battle? What decides if any other generals will aid him? Isi t completely random? Finally, is it possible for you to push the frontline on one part of a front while the enemy is pushing the frontline on another part of the same front? If so, will there be any way ot react ot enemy incursions?
 
  • 6
  • 5Like
Reactions:

MTGian

Colonel
50 Badges
Jul 27, 2004
1.128
2.715
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
As someone who whole-heartedly supports the decision to move away from micro troop movement, this diary gives me some pause. And it is not so much the details as it is the attitude. I understand that this is primarily not a warfare game and also an extremely complex game with complex systems. But I would strongly advise the devs to take the attitude that this needs to work well and give good player agency out the box. Not two years later thanks to multiple DLCs. Because this is not a PDS flagship franchise like HOI where you can afford to spend a few years getting the AI control of armies correct and not tank the game. And anytime you are taking a huge swing at something by trying a radically different approach, you automatically get less leeway. It's just the way it is.

My take, from reading this, is that the devs are extremely focused on making sure the pops, economy, and diplomacy all work. That is the number one goal. Warfare seems to be taking a bit of a backseat. Which would be fine if you were just iterating on the same old same old, but the moment you decided to do something radically new, the priorities needed to change. Some specific examples that I think will go over VERY poorly if the game releases with them:

--the front is simply the entire border and you assign generals to the entire front. Multiple people have already brought up the American Civil War for how badly this can work in practice. Yes, it is extremely difficult and fussy to program multiple fronts but that's the price for implementing this kind of system.
--Armies simply attack or defend. Multiple people have already suggested different gradations of this that are still STRATEGIC decisions. You may want to aggressively attack because you feel you have the upper hand. You might want to be more cautious. You might want to engage in guerilla warfare. You might want to defend every square inch or give ground if necessary. All of this of course would interact with the traits of the generals themselves (McClellan being a great example of someone who won't attack aggressively even if you order him to) and SHOULD interact with nation-specific war theory traits the player has agency over choosing, which again can interact positively or negatively with the generals in the field.
--No ability for the player to designate important targets. Obviously devs have already said this will be in eventually but it needs to be in at release (goes back to the attitude concern I have).

In essence, if what happens at release is what all of the doomsayers were saying over the last week, that warfare is simply a matter of picking generals and telling them to either attack or defend, then sitting back and watching what happens, in my opinion it will be a failure that not only harms this game but the entire concept of a game without micro troop movements by the player. Fair or not, the concept itself is on trial.

Can this system adequately allow the player to pick the varying Union strategies over multiple fronts in the US Civil War? Can it replicate the rapid Prussian victories shortly thereafter in Europe? Can it allow the recreation of the German plan in WWI? My read right now, based on the limited information available is no. But I also think the system CAN do these things with some TLC. Someone already posted that this seems very bare-bones and I'd have to agree. I hope by the time the game is actually released we are way, way beyond the current scope.

Completely agree. My suggestion to the developers is that this system needs three decisions for players:

1) Decide where to deploy generals - what part of the front. Not the entire front.
2) Decide from a multitude of engagement options. In addition to other suggestions, some type of slow defense where you give ground, but refuse to fight a pitched battle.
3) Decide strategic targets.

I think that is the minimum.
 
  • 35
Reactions:

arosenberger14

Major
73 Badges
Jun 22, 2011
587
2.830
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
Still mulling over what's been shown, but I'm cautiously optimistic with a few caveats.

Fronts being so large is a tricky thing to balance; for example in a US-GB war it would stretch from the Pacific to the Atlantic. How would the density of forces be handled? It seems that multiple generals allow for there to be specific "pushes" in specific regions, and that seems a natural opportunity for the player to be able to allocate different resources to different generals, and thus objectives, but the level of control may not allow that. For instance, in the above example GB may want to try and hold in the West while attacking down the East Coast, something the current system would not allow. In the first image it looks like there's a battle happening in a specific province, but where are the rest of the units? Are they tied to specific provinces, or just abstractly spread out across the entire front? Also, how are fronts with multiple belligerants such as the Russian-German/AH front in WWI handled?

I like the idea of generals having traits revealed over time and being tied into politics. I would say that generals skill and traits should be hidden when they are first recruited and only gradually revealed through combat or by investing in a strong officer training system to simulate how hard it was to predict who would be good in what role... promotions and demotions should also shake things up; a general that excelled at managing smaller armies may not necessarily be good when placed in charge of larger units, and vice versa.

Can generals change interest group? This would make a lot of sense, one of the key factors behind the Russian Revolution was how formerly monarchist officers like Brusilov became so disgusted with the Tsar's mismanagement of the War that they grudgingly supported the Bolsheviks.

Finally, I'd just like to stress two things; first we need to have good feedback points for this new war system to be successful; nothing like the moving around of stacks in earlier games, but intervention points after things like major battles, advances, or retreats to allow the player to get a sense of how the war is going and influence the war's strategy. If it's just a "mobilize, fire and forget" system, it won't be very engaging, or successful.

Second, war should absolutely be tied into pops politics; the experience of war whether victorious or not should strengthen and potentially radicalize pro-war and anti-war sentiments amongst soldiers and the general population. There should be feedback loops, situations like winning a bunch of wars, making your pops radically jingoistic, and them pushing you to colonize half the world until you bite off more than you can chew, or costly victories in war making your population demand peace or your minorities decide they'd be better off not dying for your wars should be a part of the system.
 
Last edited:
  • 19
  • 2Like
Reactions:

Delterius

Colonel
65 Badges
Aug 5, 2014
817
4.368
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Victoria 2
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
Well, if you haven't realised, the majority of people disagreeing with this 'innovation' are the same people who are supporting Paradox since day one. To answer your previous patronising question, I started with EU2 years ago and have supported their games ever since. And I STRONGLY suspect most people who are thoroughly disappointed with the 'innovation' have been playing Paradox games for years. And we feel the game is going in a very VERY wrong direction. Obviously I won't be buying it, despite putting money aside for a new laptop to be able to handle it (true story)
In other words: "I'll have you know my opinion is correct because I'm a Trve Gamer and been a Paradox fan since day 1!"

Such conceit. I've been playing Paradox games since EU2 as well. You don't speak for anyone but yourself.
 
  • 20Like
  • 16
  • 5
Reactions:

AHumpierRogue

First Lieutenant
41 Badges
Apr 27, 2019
236
1.275
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • War of the Roses
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Victoria 2
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
So after the war actually starts, what can I, the player, actually do to affect the outcome of the war beyond just making sure the machine is well oiled and keeps working? I don't see the strategic gameplay really showing here. Beyond choosing when to attack and defend, it does seem like you basically have to pray that your army is adequate to defeat the enemies and that's it.
 
  • 23Like
  • 10
Reactions:

Alsadius

Major
31 Badges
Sep 26, 2006
624
747
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Yep, this is a thing we've noted, and will likely design some sort of exception for when such edge cases arise. But permitting Generals to demobilize anytime would take away the whole dynamic of choosing when to mobilize which troops, so the default will be that by committing those troops you've committed for the duration of the war.
Would it be possible to have a cost for demobilization - say, you keep paying their maintenance for 3-6 months as if they're mobilized, but you don't get to use them? It ought to be possible to find a fair cost there.

I worry about a case like (say) Austria-Hungary fighting the UK, where the enemy has naval supremacy, and you can't actually get any active front against them. Maybe they had an alliance with the Sardinians, so there was an initial front, but you've managed to conquer their mainland territory and now there's no active front left.

Edit: I see in one of your other answers that there is going to be a forced minimum of one front, with a Naval Invasion front if no other exists. That does at least partially address my concerns, though I wonder what'll happen if one belligerent is landlocked.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:

wilcoxchar

Field Marshal
98 Badges
Nov 15, 2004
5.114
17.647
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 200k Club
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
What do you think about micromanaging of every capital investment for factories then? Don't you think those are little inconsistent design choices between each other?
Not at all. The Victoria series is and has always been an economics- and society-centric game, so I expect a high amount of detail and control in the economic and societal gameplay. It has never been a wargame nor should it be, so I do not expect as much control or detail in the war gameplay.
 
  • 27
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:

Koba133

First Lieutenant
May 3, 2021
213
1.202
I don't understand why the devs don't use the Hoi4 system and try to improve it. The reason micro is needed with Hoi4 is because the AI is so bad with the battleplanner. Rather than trying to improve it to make it less micro intensive, they remove warfare from the game. Because don't kid yourself, this is what this nes system is about, a simplified risk.

Also I don't get why the player control what the capitalists build in a laissez faire economy but can't demobilize part of the troops or fire a general during a war
 
  • 21Like
  • 12
  • 3
Reactions: