• 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:

EUnderhill

Happy Feet!
26 Badges
Mar 27, 2002
5.043
1.630
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
Then this is a failure of the system. Encirclements are a big part of securing victory and reducing enemy forces. The most prominent example I can think of is the Siege of Metz were not only Napoleon III was captured, but the French Army was eliminated allowing for an even more rapid victory. It also means you can't do anything big like strategic encirclements on a large scale to try and cut of large portions of enemy troops. Guess they'll just teleport away to safety. Yeah that's very satisfying to see as a player. All that hard work trying to encircle by directing the AI assuming it works suddenly evaporates to nothing as there are no troops on the map to encircle. They just teleport away.
Nothing has been said by a dev that they will teleport away. Besides, an AI that always gets suckered into an encirclement is detrimental to player satisfaction.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:

DerGrößteRitter

Major
82 Badges
Apr 22, 2018
547
692
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
You'll buy it. If you are posting about it on a forum, you can spare the $50 that costs it.
Last time I checked, you do not have to pay to use this forum.
 
  • 3Haha
  • 1
Reactions:

christian908

Private
14 Badges
Oct 1, 2020
23
113
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Rome Gold
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Surviving Mars
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
Since people are talking about it,

The only neato thing about tiers of mil goods I can envision to make it worth the cpu load and dev time would be the abilities to give high tear weapons to allies or enemies of my enemy, even though they don't have it researched.

But I'm sure that can just be worked around by giving them a lot of guns since with this system, you'll just be making more as tech goes up anyway. I'm fine with the abstraction.

On that note, I'm unsure if giving goods from your stockpile to another nation's is even a thing you can do or not, from what I've played I don't think it is in 2. So maybe it won't be in 3, at least not at launch.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Axe99

Ships for Victory
127 Badges
Feb 13, 2003
15.951
13.022
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Lead and Gold
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
My impression is that there are more granular actions but you don't pick them off of a list. Rather, if you want to prosecute the war aggressively or cautiously or whatever, you pick a general who will do that. And if that general isn't the most skilled or the best political fit for your country, well, now you have to decide what a swift resolution to the war is worth for you.

Aye - and I think this could work as a game, but for most large-scale conflicts in the era, or after the development of telegram and radio, it's not historically plausible. Politicians did interfere with the objectives at a far more granular level than "attack" or "defend". I think the system sounds perfect for the period before communications allowed closer control over proceedings though - but that situation doesn't hold for the entire of the game period.

I'm not suggesting anything too detailed - I'm thinking more "make sure you don't lose Paris/Verdun" or "Focus on Warsaw". Keep in mind in some situations these fronts will be hundreds of miles long (a Russian-Chinese War would be over a thousand, if Mongolia was on one side or the other) - it just doesn't hold water to suggest that generals assigned to a conflict wouldn't be given some kind of broad instructions as to where to focus the fighting.

We'll see how it turns out - I'm sure I'm not the first (or 20th :) ) person to raise the issue - and I do think that however it is at launch (and it may be great at launch) it'll be refined until it works one way or the other, so I'm not worried. Personally, I'm far more concerned about the implication in the DD that Paradox will continue with their "no news is good news" approach to the UX, requiring far more map and UX microing than in the pre-Stellaris era (or playing sloppily to the point it's historically implausible) - which I also think is a far greater risk to the fun factor of the game than the approach to war.
 
  • 3
Reactions:

Jamaican Castle

Lt. General
12 Badges
Jan 27, 2019
1.361
5.197
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
I'm not suggesting anything too detailed - I'm thinking more "make sure you don't lose Paris/Verdun" or "Focus on Warsaw". Keep in mind in some situations these fronts will be hundreds of miles long (a Russian-Chinese War would be over a thousand, if Mongolia was on one side or the other) - it just doesn't hold water to suggest that generals assigned to a conflict wouldn't be given some kind of broad instructions as to where to focus the fighting.
Well, personally I'm a fan of smaller fronts, but I do see your point as far as strategic objectives go. I just don't think it's a particular valuable use of the player's time to be picking from among a bunch of different attack types with small effect modifiers or anything of that nature.

I would be in favor of a "strategic focus" type of control where you're picking broadly what kinds of things to emphasize - "focus on infrastructure", "focus on cities", "focus on [State X]", that kind of thing. Maybe as a per-general or per-front option. "Get me Atlanta by election day" is a fine thing for the player to order. "Burn all their railroads." But you shouldn't be hovering over the battlefield every second of the war, that would defeat the whole purpose.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:

Axe99

Ships for Victory
127 Badges
Feb 13, 2003
15.951
13.022
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Lead and Gold
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
Well, personally I'm a fan of smaller fronts, but I do see your point as far as strategic objectives go. I just don't think it's a particular valuable use of the player's time to be picking from among a bunch of different attack types with small effect modifiers or anything of that nature.

I would be in favor of a "strategic focus" type of control where you're picking broadly what kinds of things to emphasize - "focus on infrastructure", "focus on cities", "focus on [State X]", that kind of thing. Maybe as a per-general or per-front option. "Get me Atlanta by election day" is a fine thing for the player to order. "Burn all their railroads." But you shouldn't be hovering over the battlefield every second of the war, that would defeat the whole purpose.

Exactly - I'm not suggesting players should have operational control (that's clearly not part of the design) but strategy, even in Napoleonic times, was far more than just "attack/defend/go home". I don't think it needs to necessarily be more nuanced by launch though - it could perhaps make for an interesting DLC/update.
 
  • 3
Reactions:

christian908

Private
14 Badges
Oct 1, 2020
23
113
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Rome Gold
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Surviving Mars
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
Exactly - I'm not suggesting players should have operational control (that's clearly not part of the design) but strategy, even in Napoleonic times, was far more than just "attack/defend/go home". I don't think it needs to necessarily be more nuanced by launch though - it could perhaps make for an interesting DLC/update.

As an update I'd be perfectly okay with post launch, I can imagine some serious anger though if they made it a paid DLC to fix the most divisive feature. The people who already hate this system, would probably see that as intentionally nerfing it on launch to add strategic depth as a paid feature. Even if that's not true.
 
  • 8
  • 1Haha
Reactions:

Jamaican Castle

Lt. General
12 Badges
Jan 27, 2019
1.361
5.197
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
As an update I'd be perfectly okay with post launch, I can imagine some serious anger though if they made it a paid DLC to fix the most divisive feature.
I don't think Axe99 is contemplating a big "fix" to the feature, but rather a fleshing-out, which I do think is suited to their "you have the basic system for free or a bunch more options if paid" model. It would be similar to e.g. Federations in Stellaris - you can form one with just the base game, but if you get the DLC you have a lot more management options and specialized things you could do. In this case, you could fight a war effectively with just the basic few options, but you'd have more specialized focuses and maneuvers available to you with DLC.
 
  • 3
Reactions:

Ojodeaguila

Captain
96 Badges
May 3, 2009
496
897
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Divine Wind
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
The 2 main concerns of the players right-now:

1. We want some control of the objectives of our generals, where our armies will push and there will hold, for example the in the ACW, maybe we could be interested as USA in advance in the Mississippi, and not in Virginia.

2. How will the supplies will recognise where our troops are in a huge front, again like the ACW, our troops in the trans-Mississippi should be limited by the supplies.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:

Axe99

Ships for Victory
127 Badges
Feb 13, 2003
15.951
13.022
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Lead and Gold
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
I don't think Axe99 is contemplating a big "fix" to the feature, but rather a fleshing-out, which I do think is suited to their "you have the basic system for free or a bunch more options if paid" model. It would be similar to e.g. Federations in Stellaris - you can form one with just the base game, but if you get the DLC you have a lot more management options and specialized things you could do. In this case, you could fight a war effectively with just the basic few options, but you'd have more specialized focuses and maneuvers available to you with DLC.

Aye - this kind of thing. Like with Man the Guns in HoI4 - naval mechanics were reworked for everyone, but the ship designer was part of the paid DLC. The free update component would need to be by far and away the important mechanical changes, with extra flavour from the DLC (a bit hard to know what to suggest at the moment - would depend a lot on whatever mechanical changes were in place).

That said, I obviously hope that we get an engaging, enjoyable warfare element to Vicky 3 at launch. I'm not saying I want the system to require an update/DLC to be fun - just that if the devs 'big play' on warfare doesn't quite work out as fun as they'd hoped (which it may still do), that they won't just leave it hanging. Obviously speculation on my part, but based on past studio behaviour I'm fairly confident. Same reason I'm a bit glum about the potential state of the UX.
 
  • 4
Reactions:

freeaxle

First Lieutenant
10 Badges
May 7, 2011
240
49
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
I think the strong link between war mechanics and the other core systems (particularly diplomacy, economy, pops) are excellent, and show that a return to the old system of warfare would be a mistake. That said, I do feel that the system as presented doesn't offer enough to make the warfare aspect of the game engaging. Based on the core pillars (society, economy, diplomacy) I think it would be a great game even if warfare is an auto-battler, but it would be a shame if it didn't have enough unique mechanics that it could be as engaging, and offer as much agency, as other areas of the game. I have three thoughts as to how you could do this, ranging from (my outside perspective with no view into the code base...) simple to complex.

1. Model army movement and allow spearheads, encirclement (may already be present, but wasn't clear to me)
I don't think I'm alone in getting the impression that warfare will consist of a frontline that uniformly advances faster or slower based on a range of factors. This alone drives a whole lot of uneasiness with the system for me: it's ahistorical and would basically make every war feel the same. It would be nice, particularly pre WW1, if generals could do things like take their armies and try to spearhead to an important location, or encircle the enemy, with their behaviour tied to traits. This would give a visual indicator that decisions are being made and a real war is being fought, as opposed to an auto-battler shifting a straight line.

2. Remove orders and replace them with a 'Strategic Objective'
Having only three orders I can give to generals is a big part of what makes the system look so simplistic, and I think you're just adding a redundant system if you patch in a way to paint an objective for your generals in addition. I'd recommend combining them so that you have one system for directing armies: setting a strategic objective for a front. In many cases that will just be "advance" or "hold", but it could be an order to take a specific state (let's say you want to prioritize one war goal over another, or knock out the industrial base of your enemy even if you have no plans to keep it), win battles in the field, etc. You give the player the ability to direct the war without adding micro or directing individual generals. It also plays nicely with the general traits system in that certain traits will be better at pursuing particular goals, contributing to a system where one general isn't objectively 'better'.

I think having something similar is going to be key to making warfare interesting and realistic, and my example is Gallipoli. WWI isn't my speciality, so forgive inaccuracies here, but my understanding of that campaign was that it was designed to open the Dardanelles to allow supply to the Russian empire, not a full blown invasion and occupation of the Ottoman Empire. Under the current system, I don't see how it would be possible to open a front in the Ottoman Empire and prevent your troops from taking an excursion into central Anatolia: you likely won't have a war goal in the region to direct them. My thinking would be that you declare your strategic objective to be taking the state you need to control the Dardanelles (or to specifically secure the strait if you can get that granular) which would direct your generals to take the area you want, and then hold it so you don't have to divert more resources from other fronts for a more costly general occupation. Now there may already be something to account for this in naval invasions, but I'd argue a unified system that can cover this would be preferable.

3. Have generals propose plans for achieving an objective
This one is the most out there, and I know that it's not a trivial feature, but I think the last thing that would help reinforce the "we're not taking control away from the player, we're just shifting their focus away from the tactical/operational to the strategic", is to implement a system where each general on a front has a specific plan for achieving your strategic objective, based of course on their personality. GUI wise, I'm imagining something from the war planner system in Vicky 2 where each general shows a rough plan for achieving the objective (lines to hold, lines of advance, etc). The player can then pick the plan that appeals most to be implemented. I would expect of course, that there would be political effects of choosing the plan of a junior general over those of a senior. This would also reinforce the need to have a many different generals with diverse personalities and the need to use a 'bad' general because he has the best plan. I would want to see the system for creating generals make picking like-minded generals the expedient choice (nobody likes a troublemaker...) to further reinforce that some nations were hamstrung militarily by political considerations...

I don't think this would be a trivial system to implement (x generals * y strategic objectives * z fronts = so many plans...) but it's one that I would find very engaging, and would definitely make me feel like I had contributed to a win by picking a good plan... or that my incompetent generals had lost a war by only providing terrible plans! From the computing side of things, I could imagine that you only generate plans for a general once they've been assigned to a front (maybe after a cooldown that also triggers on an objective change).


TL;DR strategic warfare system deeply integrated with diplomacy, pops and economy is good, but it could use some features to make it an engaging feature in its own right.
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 3Like
Reactions:

Jamaican Castle

Lt. General
12 Badges
Jan 27, 2019
1.361
5.197
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
1. Model army movement and allow spearheads, encirclement (may already be present, but wasn't clear to me)
I don't think I'm alone in getting the impression that warfare will consist of a frontline that uniformly advances faster or slower based on a range of factors. This alone drives a whole lot of uneasiness with the system for me: it's ahistorical and would basically make every war feel the same. It would be nice, particularly pre WW1, if generals could do things like take their armies and try to spearhead to an important location, or encircle the enemy, with their behaviour tied to traits. This would give a visual indicator that decisions are being made and a real war is being fought, as opposed to an auto-battler shifting a straight line.
As I understand it, the plan is that there will be battles which take place at some specific place/province on the frontline, and the result of that battle may shift one or more provinces from one side to the other. We know that generals will try to steer the battle locations according to their terrain specialties (e.g., alpine generals will try to make battles happen in hilly regions), and they mentioned there would consider wargoals to be a priority.

Advancing Generals [...] launch an attack into one of the enemy-controlled provinces along the Front
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

The relative position of the front lines could easily play a part in deciding where battles happen and who has tactical supremacy when they do. An aggressive general who's confident of keeping the enemy on the run might try to grab provinces in a deep salient into enemy territory, risking a battle at a hefty disadvantage if the other side seizes the initiative, or a more conservative general might push a broader front that is slower, but not as risky.

Of course, we'll probably learn more about this when they get to how battle resolution actually works!

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.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:

long_fella

Major
83 Badges
Sep 19, 2009
641
751
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • 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 III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
I read all of the dev diary, and liked almost all of it. I haven't read all 41 pages of posts, so apologies if this has already been covered.

Right, so... the comments about generals and "their armies" has a whiff of Imperator about it that I am not sure I like. Combine that with the impression I get that generals can only raise (/be assigned?) troops from a defined region (with concomitant barracks etc) and... how do I assign a general with "his" troops, from "his" region eg the Urals, to the front against Prussia, or Finland, or the Ottoman Empire?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Jamaican Castle

Lt. General
12 Badges
Jan 27, 2019
1.361
5.197
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
how do I assign a general with "his" troops, from "his" region eg the Urals, to the front against Prussia, or Finland, or the Ottoman Empire?
From what I understand, you pick a front when you mobilize them, and then you can move them whenever you want (subject, I assume, to a redeployment time based on how far you're sending them). The general and troops aren't obliged to stay in their home region, it's just less convenient to send them to faraway fronts.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Sigismund der Münzreiche

Corporal
62 Badges
May 27, 2021
42
165
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Dungeonland
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • War of the Roses
Maybe the HoI model might have been better but with more simplified UI regarding troop composition (similar to EU4 in appearance but more sophisticated).

If the warfare aspect goes wrong, the frontline system could be converted into a militia system that defends front lines while offense is done by the player himself.

Also the battalions of 1,000 each might be better renamed to regiments due to the size.
Generally agree with you but just wanted to say 1000 men is a battalion. A Regiment would be about 3000.
 

Sigismund der Münzreiche

Corporal
62 Badges
May 27, 2021
42
165
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Dungeonland
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • War of the Roses
Ever such a lot of the opposition to this stuff sounds more like catastrophizing than critique. "Worst game ever" "totally broken" "lol this is a mobile game" "Imperator all over again" etc.
Both, sycophantically agreeing and angrily calling it dead is wrong. I happen to be on the not liking it side of the argument but we should all make our opinions know in a constructive way so the devs can actually get a good grasp on what the majority of players actually think and how potential compromises could be found.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:

Bart Kasper

Recruit
Jun 9, 2014
7
8
Do I understand this correctly? Your generals occupy the whole front with their troops one on top of the other? They don't even divide and select a specific area? Then what is the point of an attack/defense stance at all if you have to attack or defend the entire front at the same time? After all, you don't want to attack with only 1/4 your general/troops against your opponent's entire army. You might as well have chosen stances for the entire front.
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:

bjarni19

Private
75 Badges
Feb 13, 2014
11
37
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Magicka
  • Semper Fi
  • Magicka 2
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Age of Wonders
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Victoria 2
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
Uh well, guess I was right about being skeptical. This seems like the kind of system that only gets fun after 3 expansion packs have fleshed it out enough. I think there's genuine potential in a more strategically oriented system, one of my personal favorite indie ww2 games is cauldrons of war which I think managed to get a really fun strategic system of war. But this just seems way too barebones to be engaging at launch.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:

Pete0714

General
115 Badges
Jul 5, 2010
1.766
3.320
  • Cities in Motion
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • March of the Eagles
  • Magicka
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Deus Vult
  • Darkest Hour
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Sengoku
Exactly - I'm not suggesting players should have operational control (that's clearly not part of the design) but strategy, even in Napoleonic times, was far more than just "attack/defend/go home". I don't think it needs to necessarily be more nuanced by launch though - it could perhaps make for an interesting DLC/update.
Why, oh, why are you giving the devs a freaking DLC opening?! Stop, before this game becomes DLC hell before release.
 
  • 4Haha
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions: