• 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
  • 218
  • 47
  • 22
  • 5Haha
Reactions:
Ok, so you have no fleet.

This brings to mind at least two thoughts:

First, several of Paradox's titles have automatic white peace mechanisms to terminate such a phony war.

Second, if you don't have a fleet and can't reach their island, and nobody who does have a fleet that can reach their island is willing to commit to your side in the Diplomatic Play, why would they mobilize their army to defend against your phony war?
Because they are AI and are not prepared for this kind of complex reasoning.

When a human player knows that it is impossible to disband armies he will always find a way to trick AI into raising it.
And when a human player cannot disband armies he will, sure enough, find glitches and bugs where it would destroy his fun. It is always like this, isn't it.

I understand that it may have a cost (likely time or money or manpower) to disband and raise armies. They did it in CK3. But to artificially remove the possibility from the game at all would obviously create all kinds of exploits and rage bugs. We have all been there with other PDX games.
 
Oh no... I'm really uncomfortable with that mechanic. I don't know if the intended feeling is to literally be the Prime Minister who can only watch the war from afar, hoping for the best after preparing the army, but it feels like it. I don't know... on the one hand, it seems right and logical to put a solid barrier between the player and the economy/war, because it doesn't really make sense for (again) a prime minister to literally lead the troops or personally go out and establish each factory that makes up the industrial complex one by one. But it doesn't really sound fun or exciting in comparison to the old system. At the moment, I'm starting to get a bit worried. There's a lot of stuff I like about this Victoria 3, but these army and fleet mechanics are not really appealing to me at the moment (IMO!). I'm going to wait for the game to come out and try it out before I make up my mind, obviously.
 
Oh no... I'm really uncomfortable with that mechanic. I don't know if the intended feeling is to literally be the Prime Minister who can only watch the war from afar, hoping for the best after preparing the army, but it feels like it. I don't know... on the one hand, it seems right and logical to put a solid barrier between the player and the economy/war, because it doesn't really make sense for (again) a prime minister to literally lead the troops or personally go out and establish each factory that makes up the industrial complex one by one. But it doesn't really sound fun or exciting in comparison to the old system. At the moment, I'm starting to get a bit worried. There's a lot of stuff I like about this Victoria 3, but these army and fleet mechanics are not really appealing to me at the moment (IMO!). I'm going to wait for the game to come out and try it out before I make up my mind, obviously.
I've gradually warmed up to it in the past few weeks. If you think about it, this system gives you most of what an improved Vic2 warfare system would. Think about it this way: In Vic2, you'd position some armies to defend certain clusters of provinces while actively sieging enemy provinces and hunting enemy armies with your other armies. You could also change their composition to make them better fit these roles. This system lets you do these all, so it plays like an automated version of Vic2 warfare in a way. If the player can have enough generals during a large war, the system can work well with that granularity.

Personally, I would've liked to be able to override the automation to focus on certain objectives at a more micro scale (like you can in HOI4). That said, if this warfare system still allows players to participate meaningfully in wars as less militarily focused nations instead of being sitting ducks, and makes wartime gameplay and peacetime gameplay distinct enough experiences, not being able to move armies by yourself shouldn't be that much of a loss. The AARs are making me feel optimistic about this, but I guess we'll only truly know once we finally get to play the game.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I've gradually warmed up to it in the past few weeks. If you think about it, this system gives you most of what an improved Vic2 warfare system would. Think about it this way: In Vic2, you'd position some armies to defend certain clusters of provinces while actively sieging enemy provinces and hunting enemy armies with your other armies. You could also change their composition to make them better fit these roles. This system lets you do these all, so it plays like an automated version of Vic2 warfare in a way. If the player can have enough generals during a large war, the system can work well with that granularity.

Personally, I would've liked to be able to override the automation to focus on certain objectives at a more micro scale (like you can in HOI4). That said, if this warfare system still allows players to participate meaningfully in wars as less militarily focused nations instead of being sitting ducks, and makes wartime gameplay and peacetime gameplay distinct enough experiences, not being able to move armies by yourself shouldn't be that much of a loss. The AARs are making me feel optimistic about this, but I guess we'll only truly know once we finally get to play the game.
I will hope you are right. I especially appreciate your suggestion for a limited possibility to issue direct orders to the army. We could have interesting mechanics with that:
A delay between the moment the order is given by the player and its implementation by the army or navy, based on available communication technologies, infrastructure, distance of troops (etc). The simulation of the human factor (generals' personalities, policies, doctrines, the fact that spamming direct orders can create chaos in the front system, or the use of ill-adapted strategies by directly led armies - e.g. the catastrophic English cavalry charge in the Crimean War). In short, it would clearly give the possibility to juggle between two systems while knowing that the direct order has a real strategic cost. The delay between the direct player order and its implementation (or misinterpretation) can really create a fog of strategic warfare where intervention can pay off in both strategic success and disaster. Like, imagine the player ordering movement to an expeditionary force 2 weeks or even months away? We would have many consequences that could recreate the military incidents that punctuated the 19th century!

In short, it would give a more interesting strategic depth to the game in my opinion, using your idea. At least, I would be in peace.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that it doesn't fit most of the timeline of the game however. There really were no war goal locations during this time period (apart of some specific instances like Mississippi in ACW, Port Arthur in R-J). There were maybe minor strategic points like fortification or supply hub, but generally the main war goal was to concentrate all forces and cripple the enemy army in one decisive battle. So no fronts really either, just spread out armies trying to outmanouevre the enemy and find a weakness in his positioning.

Since napoleonic warfare of rapidly moving armies there was pretty much nothing like holding a territory. And "economic warfare" of attrition and fighting over strategic locations and territories didn't exist until 20th century. ACW is an exception because there were 2 identical armies on both sides literally manoeuvring around each other till one side fallen exhausted. But that was pretty much considered as "ill warfare" as Moltke himself described it. Throughout the whole 19th century there was still alive idea of Napoleonic Grand Decisive Victory. That you will defeat most of the enemy's forces in one battle (and was pretty much pointless if it was near Sedan, Gettysburg or even Paris itself) and force the enemy to comply or face the humiliation of a siege and partisan warfare (which noone would choose frankly if it wasn't about his very existence). There was no way to quickly seal off heavy losses sustained in a general battle (unless the armies consisted mainly of militia - ACW again) and countries needed several years to make their army operational again and once you lost that general battle there was no front anymore anyway. WW1 stopped this rapid process initially because armies grew way too big to be defeated in one battle and subsequently because of trenches, barbed wire and machineguns which made offensive capabilities pretty much nonexistent and resulted in armies slowly bleeding in attrition warfare.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm aware I'm very late to the party but as I missed the dev diaries through winter and I couldn't see kind of a megathread addressing these concern, I felt the need to write here as someone who played every PGS game since EU2 and adoring Vicky since 2003.

I've been very hyped about Vicky3 and all the things I've read and watched indicated that it'd be better than ever. After being burned by how CK3 turned out to be which I also was extremely hyped about, I still dared to be excited about it. Warfare? No problem, they'd handle that right for sure. I guess I still wasn't fully ready to be skeptic until explicitly assured with cold hard information.

After spending yesterday night cramming all these new things I learned about warfare and sleeping on it, I just don't feel I'm satisfied at all unlike everything else I know about the game's systems. There are different aspects of it that ring alarm bells which will tremendously impact the game experience.

First of all, I just don't understand the arbitrary declaration of Vicky not being a game focused on warfare but on economics, social fabric, government policies and the like. Alright, that's what I've always loved about it compared to other PGS games. That didn't mean it had a lesser warfare component than something like EU series. In fact I'd personally even rate it above that. The game doesn't have to artificially 'streamline' it to the point that while being in a war, you can mostly autopilot it as presented here. The era while 'relative to the prior centuries' peaceful, still saw quite a bit of warfare especially by the great powers, not to mention culminating up in the most massive world the world has ever seen. You simply cannot abstract it out and still have a faithful portrayal of the time.

Secondly, everything about the front (I'm not even using plural here because there's only one for your basic one on one war) and generals seem neither engaging nor exciting. Both graphically and gameplay-wise. While UI might be worked on, it doesn't change the fact that it's one line moving back and forth with battalion numbers and the dreaded 'advantage number' from CK3. Witnessing firsthand how dreary CK3 combat was, I can't help but feel desperation that everything you worked for building up in the game is distilled and packaged into a couple of numbers which are then thrown onto a completely on the rails RNG simulator. You say advance, defend and that's all. Like, how about only counterattack? What about, attack only if you have means to win without catastrophic losses? I very much doubt that era's rulers had no input whatsoever beyond "slam your head against them till you can move" or "sit still and do nothing even if the front is basically empty".

Thirdly, while being costly is something that's quite alright and factual, combined with the idea that "everything you can get in a war, you can get with diplomacy" and the potential dullness of warfare itself, the whole aspect of warfare might end up as something you avoid at all costs because as gameplay it's just not something to look forward to while costing you a lot of work. I don't know about others but while I didn't go to war often in Vic1 and 2, when I did, it was an engaging and entertaining experience. Winning was something I felt a rush about. Battles felt significant, organizing armies, maneuvering and seeing how it plays out. Here in Vic3, after I read all about it I thought to myself, "what's the point?"

For over two decades now I'm following PGS games and for the decade before that, I used to play imaginary grand strategy games I conjured up in my mind on pen and paper as a child. I was pining for the day pre-purchase button went green for Vicky 3. Now I'll just wait for the launch and maybe even wait for a demo to be persuaded. I think this was the wrong game for Paradox to conduct such a big experiment, considering how it's the most niche among their four main running series. I'm now worried it'll be far from a commercial success and another sequel will be forever shelved. Maybe I'm more worried I'll no longer look forward to another sequel.
 
  • 13Like
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
the whole aspect of warfare might end up as something you avoid at all costs because as gameplay it's just not something to look forward to while costing you a lot of work
you say that like it's a bad thnig
 
  • 7
  • 6
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
It's a bad thing to say about any part of any game that developers consciously designed and put effort in. There's a whole wide spectrum between that and game enabling rushes to world conquest with Pacific Island nations.
 
  • 8
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm aware I'm very late to the party but as I missed the dev diaries through winter and I couldn't see kind of a megathread addressing these concern, I felt the need to write here as someone who played every PGS game since EU2 and adoring Vicky since 2003.

I've been very hyped about Vicky3 and all the things I've read and watched indicated that it'd be better than ever. After being burned by how CK3 turned out to be which I also was extremely hyped about, I still dared to be excited about it. Warfare? No problem, they'd handle that right for sure. I guess I still wasn't fully ready to be skeptic until explicitly assured with cold hard information.

After spending yesterday night cramming all these new things I learned about warfare and sleeping on it, I just don't feel I'm satisfied at all unlike everything else I know about the game's systems. There are different aspects of it that ring alarm bells which will tremendously impact the game experience.

First of all, I just don't understand the arbitrary declaration of Vicky not being a game focused on warfare but on economics, social fabric, government policies and the like. Alright, that's what I've always loved about it compared to other PGS games. That didn't mean it had a lesser warfare component than something like EU series. In fact I'd personally even rate it above that. The game doesn't have to artificially 'streamline' it to the point that while being in a war, you can mostly autopilot it as presented here. The era while 'relative to the prior centuries' peaceful, still saw quite a bit of warfare especially by the great powers, not to mention culminating up in the most massive world the world has ever seen. You simply cannot abstract it out and still have a faithful portrayal of the time.

Secondly, everything about the front (I'm not even using plural here because there's only one for your basic one on one war) and generals seem neither engaging nor exciting. Both graphically and gameplay-wise. While UI might be worked on, it doesn't change the fact that it's one line moving back and forth with battalion numbers and the dreaded 'advantage number' from CK3. Witnessing firsthand how dreary CK3 combat was, I can't help but feel desperation that everything you worked for building up in the game is distilled and packaged into a couple of numbers which are then thrown onto a completely on the rails RNG simulator. You say advance, defend and that's all. Like, how about only counterattack? What about, attack only if you have means to win without catastrophic losses? I very much doubt that era's rulers had no input whatsoever beyond "slam your head against them till you can move" or "sit still and do nothing even if the front is basically empty".

Thirdly, while being costly is something that's quite alright and factual, combined with the idea that "everything you can get in a war, you can get with diplomacy" and the potential dullness of warfare itself, the whole aspect of warfare might end up as something you avoid at all costs because as gameplay it's just not something to look forward to while costing you a lot of work. I don't know about others but while I didn't go to war often in Vic1 and 2, when I did, it was an engaging and entertaining experience. Winning was something I felt a rush about. Battles felt significant, organizing armies, maneuvering and seeing how it plays out. Here in Vic3, after I read all about it I thought to myself, "what's the point?"

For over two decades now I'm following PGS games and for the decade before that, I used to play imaginary grand strategy games I conjured up in my mind on pen and paper as a child. I was pining for the day pre-purchase button went green for Vicky 3. Now I'll just wait for the launch and maybe even wait for a demo to be persuaded. I think this was the wrong game for Paradox to conduct such a big experiment, considering how it's the most niche among their four main running series. I'm now worried it'll be far from a commercial success and another sequel will be forever shelved. Maybe I'm more worried I'll no longer look forward to another sequel.
First, I want to say that your new stance on when to buy games is the correct one all along. You should never preorder games because you never know, despite all the dev diaries and previews, just how good or bad the core game loop is and how it feels after 50 hours of play. I am not going to preorder Vic 3 because I learned my lesson with Hoi 4 and CK3.

Second, I agree with your criticisms of the war system. A counterattack order is needed to only capture back core territory. There should be a mechanism to tell the AI general just how far to push the attack, whether that is an aggression button or a war target.

Third, I disagree that the war system is "empty". There are plenty of feedback loops between the war system and your Pops, your Interest Groups, diplomacy, and your economic system. Even a minor war may be catastrophic to your economy if your imports are affected. Every war is a risk to your stability.

A counterpoint to your argument is that in most Paradox games, the game is completely empty WITHOUT war. In EU4 and Hoi 4, there is no fun engaging game loop that does not have war as a central component. But in Vic games, you can have entire game sessions and never go to war. I welcome the developers' intent to make a fun engaging deep game loop that does not require war at all. War is now a bonus, and it looks engaging enough to me (minor corrections are needed as both of us have stated).
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I normally don't pre-order, this was an extremely rare instance that I trusted both the franchise and company while what I saw from dev diaries were all spot on, until this. Even for this I gave the benefit of doubt until I could every piece of info released about it. The moved onto stuff like flags apparently so I assume there's not much to change about this.

I didn't go more in-depth about the lack of control regarding army operations but how it stands ironically is reminiscent of WWI blunders that resulted in millions of men marching onto machine guns. I just don't see how a ruler would be more hands on about luxury clothes factory operation than military goals. It makes no sense whatsoever from either reality of gameplay perspective. What irked me was the almost proud declaration of having more control on navy operations which aren't that better either.

The presence and betterment of all those other aspects didn't give a blank check to eschew combat. It's not even something you can just DLC or patch in later if the starting situation is featureless to this degree. Not that I'd consider that okay but we know how it goes in recent games so I could be willing to turn a blind eye if there was a solid base to improve upon.

Being able to do with war is not an excuse to have a lackluster war system. I was and I will praise them for all the other things they did good, however that doesn't mean I'll be content with the absolute worst combat system they came up with in two decades. This is something I'd probably be okay with back in 2003, not in 2023. Why should change for the sake of change itself and not improvement be accepted as an admirable thing? It's a grand strategy game that takes place between 1836-1936, war shouldn't ever be considered a 'bonus'. Why do we even have a third of whole tech tree and several types of pops on it if the whole affair is so dull you'd rather not do it? One should avoid war if one chooses because of their own strategical approach and decisions, not because it rivals watching paint dry.
 
  • 8Like
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh no... I'm really uncomfortable with that mechanic. I don't know if the intended feeling is to literally be the Prime Minister who can only watch the war from afar, hoping for the best after preparing the army, but it feels like it. I don't know... on the one hand, it seems right and logical to put a solid barrier between the player and the economy/war, because it doesn't really make sense for (again) a prime minister to literally lead the troops or personally go out and establish each factory that makes up the industrial complex one by one. But it doesn't really sound fun or exciting in comparison to the old system. At the moment, I'm starting to get a bit worried. There's a lot of stuff I like about this Victoria 3, but these army and fleet mechanics are not really appealing to me at the moment (IMO!). I'm going to wait for the game to come out and try it out before I make up my mind, obviously.
I think the way to think about this is would you rather do the countless tasks of micro as well as try to manage your economy and all other peace-time activities of the game loop? Or do you simply set orders and change the orders when needed while assigning more or fewer troops to those theaters of war and dedicate more of your time to transitioning your economy into a wartime state and managing your diplomacy?

Because outside of singular all-consuming world wars, most of the game loop during the war will be your nation engaged in a war against one or more nations while still at peacetime with other rivals. You being at war increases the chance that you get ganged up on by other rivals so you still have to manage that aspect. Also, your Pops are becoming more radicalized with wartime losses and your economy will suffer from labor shortages, restricted trade systems and blocked resource flows, and more Pops becoming Dependents from wartime injuries.

I hate having to stop the clock because war adds so much work to the game loop vs peacetime and Vic 3 has a very beefy peacetime game loop. I do think the war system needs some more player control for war targets and more detailed orders like a counterattack order to recapture core territory. But the new war system cuts all tedious micro out, removes most cheese strats and AI exploit strats like parking your army in winter on a mountain to exploit a dumb attacking AI in EU4, yet it preserves the core goals of what war is supposed to accomplish.

The simplified war system provides for an easier, simpler, more elegant multiplayer experience by not needing countless "house rules" as you need in Hoi 4 MP servers for not allowing excessive strategic bombing.

Finally and MOST importantly, it allows the AI to actually put up a fighting chance against the player in calculating relative strengths, army composition, troop numbers, etc, etc. Look in all the other Paradox forums, the lack of a challenging and "aware" AI is always in the top 5 complaints about each game, whether it is Stellaris, Hearts of Iron, EU, or CK. Any system that allows for a better wartime AI is worth serious consideration.

Everyone's stance on micro is very personal so I don't think I will convince anyone who likes micro in their war system. But these are my reasons for liking a micro-free system and I hope it helps people understand why some of us do like the new system as it is outlined.
 
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Why do we even have a third of whole tech tree and several types of pops on it if the whole affair is so dull you'd rather not do it?
This is unironically my argument for supporting more hands-off warfare system.

I find EU4, Victoria 2 and HoI4 large scale warfare extremely faulty. EU4 and Victoria 2 are micromanagement fests. HoI4 has the same while it also tries to make player use automatization by penalizing player for microing.
 
  • 6
  • 2Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
This is unironically my argument for supporting more hands-off warfare system.

I find EU4, Victoria 2 and HoI4 large scale warfare extremely faulty. EU4 and Victoria 2 are micromanagement fests. HoI4 has the same while it also tries to make player use automatization by penalizing player for microing.
but they don't actually get penalized, as planning bonus still affects your attacking units when controlled manually (which I am against, but then half the Hoi4 players would riot if they got that removed again)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Our aim is to make the game playable and well-paced, without requiring frequent pausing

Playable and well paced... Do you mean dumbed down? Vic2 is simple and playable already, after your first couple of hours you realise it’s actually very simple... Also what’s wrong with pausing the game or taking it 1 speed sometimes? Pause button exists for a reason just like the one speed button, it’s okay that these two features can be useful sometimes.
 
  • 15
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm aware I'm very late to the party but as I missed the dev diaries through winter and I couldn't see kind of a megathread addressing these concern, I felt the need to write here as someone who played every PGS game since EU2 and adoring Vicky since 2003.
Your opinion is far from universal among players who've played Paradox games since EU2. Speaking as another person who's been in Paradox games that long, the new warfare system is an extremely welcome change. Warfare and the micromanagement in every Paradox game, and really most alleged strategy games, has been tedious, particularly so for the games that aren't HOI where the warfare is not intended to be the main focus of the game. And the fact that combat requires so much of the player's attention every time a war happens ends up taking away from the other, more fun aspects of the game that are the main focus of the games and therefore supposed to be what the player is paying most attention to. So a move to treating the minutiae of combat and units with the level of involvement they deserve in a non-war-centirc game and leaving the tactical part up to the generals while the player can focus more on the strategic part of warfare is a great move that makes me actually not dread the annoying slog of war gameplay in a strategy game for once.
 
  • 7
  • 4Like
  • 4
  • 1Love
Reactions:
but they don't actually get penalized, as planning bonus still affects your attacking units when controlled manually (which I am against, but then half the Hoi4 players would riot if they got that removed again)
I am referring to the fact that planning bonus decays faster if the unit is under manual orders.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This is unironically my argument for supporting more hands-off warfare system.

I find EU4, Victoria 2 and HoI4 large scale warfare extremely faulty. EU4 and Victoria 2 are micromanagement fests. HoI4 has the same while it also tries to make player use automatization by penalizing player for microing.
I find it quite confusing to see so many Paradox fans suddenly realizing that they have been enduring, so to speak, the bulk of the gameplay that has been present in ALL Paradox games until now. I sure wouldn't care at all about any game Paradox would be doing if combat gameplay agitated me to the point that I'd be overjoyed to see it completely replaced by "attack" and "defend" buttons.

I wonder if anyone would be pleased to see the economic system in EU5 be replaced with "earn money" and "don't earn money" buttons. That would sure eliminate a lot of tedium and microing.
Your opinion is far from universal among players who've played Paradox games since EU2. Speaking as another person who's been in Paradox games that long, the new warfare system is an extremely welcome change. Warfare and the micromanagement in every Paradox game, and really most alleged strategy games, has been tedious, particularly so for the games that aren't HOI where the warfare is not intended to be the main focus of the game. And the fact that combat requires so much of the player's attention every time a war happens ends up taking away from the other, more fun aspects of the game that are the main focus of the games and therefore supposed to be what the player is paying most attention to. So a move to treating the minutiae of combat and units with the level of involvement they deserve in a non-war-centirc game and leaving the tactical part up to the generals while the player can focus more on the strategic part of warfare is a great move that makes me actually not dread the annoying slog of war gameplay in a strategy game for once.
I might be repeating myself but as I expressed before, the focus of the game or how well other aspects of the game have been conceived has no bearing on a crucial, and I stress, crucial aspect of the game lacking the necessary detail and attention. And I totally disagree on the notion that during wartime, war shouldn't be the main occupation of the player. Please tell me of any decent ruler in world history that hasn't prioritized war effort in his/her daily agenda at any point of time. I find it preposterous to advertise it as something inherently good to not pay attention to an ongoing war. If the aspect of warfare is done so blandly, anything else would look fun in comparison!

That said, I'm one of those rare people who liked HoI4 battle planner and AI microing system. I certainly would be okay to see it here, even a simpler version with no manual intervention. Even that would be way ahead of this abstract toss up of numbers which has a complexity of light switch. To call it strategic is a grave injustice to the word.
 
  • 13Like
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
I find it preposterous to advertise it as something inherently good to not pay attention to an ongoing war.
oh, you'll have lots to pay attention to if there's a war on. you do get that, don't you?
 
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions: