• 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:

Voodoo Lilium

First Lieutenant
70 Badges
Nov 30, 2017
274
870
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
Innovative changes are always going to upset more people than doing what's expected. I for one greatly appreciate creativity and new thinking from devs.
I appreciate the creativity; I am highly disappointed in the execution (thus far). And I was one who was originally optimistic and giving the devs the benefit of the doubt last week. I think they have some interesting and creative concepts, but this system, as described thus far, feels utterly uninteresting and uninvolved.

It's possible that further details will get me excited and optimistic again, but it's looking quite unlikely.
 
  • 16
  • 1Like
  • 1
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
I appreciate the creativity; I am highly disappointed in the execution (thus far). And I was one who was originally optimistic and giving the devs the benefit of the doubt last week. I think they have some interesting and creative concepts, but this system, as described thus far, feels utterly uninteresting and uninvolved.

It's possible that further details will get me excited and optimistic again, but it's looking quite unlikely.
Were the game to be railroaded to make sure that most of the wars that happen are the ones that actually did happen, you could build a system that fleshes those out more. That there still will be a sandbox aspect to the game means the AI must be robust enough to handle not only the wars we expect to see, but the ones that don't as well, and at least for a rough cut, will be a more abstract war system, which, imo, will be if not fully satisfactory, at least good enough for launch day.
 
  • 9
Reactions:

hazard151

Second Lieutenant
107 Badges
Jul 1, 2011
134
389
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Semper Fi
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
I feel like this is the minimal amount of interaction you need to make a fronts based warfare system workable. Being more hands-off and less micro-intensive, sure, I can get that, but being ENTIRELY hands-off is not what I was imagining or hoping for. Can you even choose which generals control which portions of a front? Like, what if I want General C to hold this large frontier that probably won't be important but still needs to be protected, and have Generals A and B over in these two important strategic regions where their respective skills will be most beneficial? I do not like the idea of the AI making these decisions for me. The AI can't know what I'm thinking and what my priorities are. There has to be some way for the user to interact with the game to make these kinds of strategic decisions.

I get the feeling that the intent of the developers is that you don't actually need to worry about that because your general staff aren't stupid and will assign your generals accordingly. That doesn't mean it always works out the way you want it to, of course, because errors do get made in war as they are elsewhere in life, and it's also entirely possible that your frontier general is on a train back from the capital to the frontier when he hears there's an enemy force marching somewhere close and he happens to be the closest general at hand.

Now, I think that the system as envisioned can do a good job of running a mostly automated war, with the nation's highest level of government not needing to do more than tell its generals 'here is the front, here are the men you will command, here are your objectives, go figure out how to get it done', which is historically how wars were fought until the radio made it possible to tell individual regiment commanders to get to the next town from the capital. Although it would get abstracted away into the AI's considerations, a commander specializing in a specific form of combat would then plot a route to take advantage of his skills, requisition supplies, have them positioned ahead of time where possible and march with his men on campaign, to then meet enemy forces in battle and try and sweep them off the field. Or, you know, not, and take the terrain he was after without major opposition, it was rare but it happened.

Of course, the AI, not being stupid, would try to out maneuver the foe on the strategic level, abstracted away again. This, again, is realistic, with multiple campaigns kicking off in ways the opposition didn't anticipate or couldn't practically cover, hitting identified or running over unexpected weak spots. In other Paradox games, you have to hunt for these yourself, in this game, the presumption is that the AI is, again, not stupid, so your commanders are looking for flaws in the enemy's defenses and the defenders are trying to convince your commanders that either the defenses are too strong or that this hard to notice weakness is an opportunity (for an ambush).

This is, what it seems to me, the intent. Where you can have McClellan, Pope and Lee duke it out in the east of the USA where most of the war objectives are, while much smaller skirmishes rage out in the boonies past the Mississippi where population numbers are low, infrastructure limited and the industries lacking in value. Fun for map painting purposes, but not so useful otherwise.


Now, whether or not Paradox pulls that off is an entirely different question.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:

Onlyherefortheconverter

Corporal
51 Badges
Jul 16, 2017
35
188
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
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.

This has likely already been said in 44 pages but I'm not trawling through them all so - The only thing I take umbrage with is that adding more strategic options other than Attack, Standby or Defense is merely being "considered". Players need a sense of agency over their games and if they do not get that then a game will feel pointless and people will simply stop playing it. I 100% agree with the general direction PDX are going with this but I fear they're currently too far against microing to the point players will just feel frustrated with their lack of agency if things go wrong and that is a huge no-no for any game.

In my opinion, as players we absolutely need more big picture strategic options for the player and/or the ability to provide plans/movements to generals before the game is released. Whether generals then actually adopt, or to which extent generals adopt a player's plans/movements can then be tied to a host of factors including a general's interest group status, and if the player's plan fits a general's traits, style, and personality etc. Doing so could also mean players would have to take into consideration their roster of generals and their traits and abilities while crafting a macro-level plan they think their roster of generals will carry out most effectively (think of creating a suitable tactic on Football Manager for the squad/players you have for an imperfect but theoretically similar example). Not only would such a system add a completely new level of dynamism to each save, but such a system would also strike a perfect balance between too much micro or macro as players will still retain macro-level agency over warfare but the micro-level execution will be entirely dependent upon their roster of generals and how well they quite literally manage them. So even if things do go wrong the player won't feel like it was because of a lack of agency.

My point isn't that I want the exact system above but more to demonstrate that there are possibilities to balance adding more options for the player and the level of microing PDX desires (which I absolutely agree with as a decision) and I hope they do add something more before releasing the game otherwise it will harm VIC3. I take no enjoyment in saying this as VIC2 is my favorite and most satisfying PDX game because it's a game focused on the development - both political and economic - of the country you play as and not on warfare entirely. As such I absolutely agree with PDX's decision to create a new less micro warfare model, but I fear its current execution could harm VIC3 in the long-run, which could be avoided if they added just a couple of more options for the player before the game is released.
 
  • 7Like
  • 2
Reactions:

SaydaNeen

Großadmiral
77 Badges
Sep 1, 2013
263
136
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Dungeonland
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • War of the Roses
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV
However, assuming I understand this correctly, if my only action when war breaks out is to click on a front, click assign general, click attack/defend for that general and that is it throughout the entire rest of the war
This, this is what concerns me. Like I said, it's too simplistic for the major events of the time period! They did say that strategies are going to be taken into account and you can choose the overall strategy for that general, but maybe that is the attack/defend strategy.
It concerns me, but I will wait and see how the war process works and progresses, how the front moves and battles are won and lost before I start criticizing their decisions, but until then I'll remain skeptical.
 
  • 2
Reactions:

Paul-Alain Léger

Second Lieutenant
66 Badges
Sep 12, 2018
102
668
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • 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: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
To those who say 'you are the political leadership, the spirit of the nation etc you don't get involved in wars as in reality', I'll have you know in the Franco-prussian war there was a huge debate between Bismarck, Moltke and King Wilhelm if Paris was going to be bombarded and stormed or just sieged into submission. Bismarck advocated bombarding it and storming it despite the civilian and German military casualties because he wanted a quick end to the war before Britain or Russia intervened, Moltke was against it because of the German casualties it would involve and Wilhelm against it as well because of humanitarian reasons and loss of international prestige.

The general responsible for the siege, Von Blumenthal? Well, he had no say, neither did the two leaders of the besieging armies (crown prince Frederick and crown prince Albert of Saxony)

Which actually could open up a whole new interaction chapter with your nation's characters, different interest groups advocating different approaches to the war (pushing for an offensive, different secondary objectives to the war - target factories, target ports due to merchant fleet competition etc etc) which depending on the route YOU take, displease or appease them
 
Last edited:
  • 14
  • 5Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:

Persuit

Second Lieutenant
85 Badges
Jun 3, 2011
140
40
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 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: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
Not going to lie, this is looking really bad.
Why?
All aspects of war dumbed down to tell general to attack or tell general to defend. Doesn’t really feel like a fun and engaging concept of war. Mobile games have more depth.
 
  • 20
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Jan 19, 2019
35
78
Victoria 3 is set in time period where wars, conflicts and crisis have shaped the world we know today, not to mention wwl, destruction of empires, colonialisam, ruusso japanesse war...

I assume that you've simplified war, just to make us bored with warfare so that we divert our attention to diplomacy and pops. Shame. I feel disappointed.

Where are the unit sprites, where is ability to draw fronts, to choose strategys and paths of advencment, how do you plan to recrate east asian colonisation where fronts did not existed, how about siege of premszyl, frontless american civil war.....

If your goal was to make us concentrate on diplomacy pops etc, you didn't have to ruin warfare you could make wars more expensive, more costly in terms of recovery, infamy and exhaustion, you didn't have to ruin warfare completely...
Yeah, this is so in depth i can press two buttons, attack/defense, and reshape the world history.

Shame
 
  • 15
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:

WhatThatStandFor

Corporal
38 Badges
Sep 3, 2015
43
214
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Semper Fi
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • For the Motherland
  • Darkest Hour
Victoria 3 is set in time period where wars, conflicts and crisis have shaped the world we know today, not to mention wwl, destruction of empires, colonialisam, ruusso japanesse war...

I assume that you've simplified war, just to make us bored with warfare so that we divert our attention to diplomacy and pops. Shame. I feel disappointed.

Where are the unit sprites, where is ability to draw fronts, to choose strategys and paths of advencment, how do you plan to recrate east asian colonisation where fronts did not existed, how about siege of premszyl, frontless american civil war.....

If your goal was to make us concentrate on diplomacy pops etc, you didn't have to ruin warfare you could make wars more expensive, more costly in terms of recovery, infamy and exhaustion, you didn't have to ruin warfare completely...
Yeah, this is so in depth i can press two buttons, attack/defense, and reshape the world history.

Shame
Exactly. One of the things they said in the previous DD is that war should be EXPENSIVE, not boring.
 
  • 18
  • 1Love
Reactions:

Dancing_Koala

Recruit
69 Badges
Dec 31, 2015
2
7
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
At first I was skeptical about the new war mechanics, but after giving it a second thought, I am cautiously optimistic. I think if this system as a concept is properly implemented that it could be successful, though I had initially preferred a more tactical approach.
As I understood the mechanics that was presented in the DD, I do not see that the system in its current state would allow for "- brilliant strategies" and have particularly interesting strategic choices after the preparation phase and during the war. I have the following suggestions that I think would help make war more interesting from a strategic perspective.

- Fronts can be automatically created and along the entire national border, but it should be possible to appoint a general with an associated army for sections of the front.
An example that has been mentioned several times is the American Civil War, with this system the player can appoint a defensive general with fewer battalions on the western section and a larger offensive army on the eastern section of the front.

- Battalions should be able to be appointed directly to a general.

- Battalions should be able to be customize for the purposes they intend to fulfill.

- There should be more stances than defend and attack with their own pros and cons that represent different attack and defense strategies. I would for exempel like a more defensive stance that takes into account "dig in" bonuses but is less mobile and a more aggressive that is possibly more costly.

- It should be possible at a strategic level to prepare defensive positions before the war breaks out, such as building forts or defensiv lines on strategic positions.

- It has already been mentioned that the player should be able to set priority goals for the generals, I agree that it is a good idea.

- Demobilization should be able to be a chose by the player even during war.

- Generals should be able to be replaced during war.

Would be grateful for feedback and want to say that I have high hopes that Vic3 will be an great game.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:

WhatThatStandFor

Corporal
38 Badges
Sep 3, 2015
43
214
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Semper Fi
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • For the Motherland
  • Darkest Hour
General opinion outside of sycophants is the system is a good idea but its way too simplified for its own good. No breakthroughs and encirclements because armies aren't actually simulated? Like, bruh.
 
  • 11
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:

CrackingShow

Captain
62 Badges
Apr 6, 2011
383
902
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Magicka
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pride of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
This is a disingenuous argument. Yes, baiting the AI into entrenched soldiers on mountains was a cheese tactic in Victoria 2, but that doesn't mean that this replacement system of "oh you don't actually have any control aside from the attack/defend buttons and there's no way your generals can perform any kind of strategic maneuver even a basically skilled player would have been able to in Victoria 2 short of mindlessly advancing" is a good one. The fact is the player isn't able to actually directly influence warfare beyond clicking one of three buttons or assigning generals. At best you're watching the computer roll dice, at worst you already know which side will win and you're just waiting for time to pass. There's scope for absolutely nothing interesting here and it boggles the mind how Wiz and his gang thought this was the solution to the problems with Vicky 2 warfare.
You won't be mindlessly pressing forward as you need to keep an eye on logistics and morale of the units. If you just keep grinding forward the men will become worn out and you will end up in trouble.

There will always be dice rolling in paradox games. In EU4 and VIC2 rolling badly for multiple phases was a disaster, even in Hoi4 failing to get reserves to arrive in time is very painful.

I think Wiz is a good game developer who did a great job on Stellaris, and this front system is a good way to handle war when I'm fighting on multiple fronts whilst trying to manage my economy.

I don't agree there is 'absolutely nothing interesting here' as you will have to make decisions every war you fight. Which fronts to prioritise. Which fronts to push on, and which fronts to defend on. How long should I push for until I take a rest to recover from fighting. How can I use my fleet to help me win this war. Is fighting this war 'worth it' in terms of gain vs cost.
 
  • 11
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Jan 19, 2019
35
78
Since I really don't want to read 44 pages of posts, could someone in short describe what does the community feel?
Hardcore supporters would support anything from Pdx.

One the other side:
I have read all 45 pages, and i can tell you one thing for sure, people are more or less disappointed with this.
There are to many situations in war that This new system can´t simulate.

My explanation is that Pdx. actually did this intentionally to move our focus more on diplo. and pops.

Big risk for them.

PS.

That picture showing Texas/Utah front looks like African Savannah is on fire, poor Lyons.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

Wulfburk

Captain
27 Badges
May 23, 2012
402
575
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Semper Fi
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 - Second Wave
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Magicka 2
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
I don't agree there is 'absolutely nothing interesting here' as you will have to make decisions every war you fight. Which fronts to prioritise. Which fronts to push on, and which fronts to defend on. How long should I push for until I take a rest to recover from fighting. How can I use my fleet to help me win this war. Is fighting this war 'worth it' in terms of gain vs cost.
Too bad that bilateral wars will generally have one front. So your decision, barring naval invasions, will go down to click attack or defend.
A war between France vs Germany or Qing vs Russia will have less player input than a war that has multiple co-beligerents, since frontlines will be created in each state border.

The only outcome of this is that people will cheese naval invasions all the time, not because of how cool they are, or how immersive to the time period. They will repeatedly do naval invasions precisely because that will be one of the few things that they will have an input on during the war.
 
  • 9
  • 2
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
Since I really don't want to read 44 pages of posts, could someone in short describe what does the community feel?
Most people like it or are willing to give it a chance. A small but very vocal minority of a few posters are falsely claiming it's the end of the world and that they are the majority.
 
  • 22
  • 9
Reactions: