• 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:
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.
Since when did EU have an economic system? You just own provinces and get money automatically. You put down merchants at the very start of the game and that's it.
 
  • 11
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
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'd say for myself, because it's a perspective I've not seen in the current discussion.

The best example of what was wrong is actually V2.
I personally did not endure the Victoria 2's warfare painfully. Instead, I was just OK with me being quite inefficient about it. As a bonus, it partly compensates for AI dumbness.
The reason for that is the fact that being efficient is extremely boring. To gather mobilized forces and juggle army composition between newly-created infantry and your old non-infantry battalions, while trying to get the lowest attrition, is for a large empire nothing short of work, and not a very rewarding one. To micro your armies on more than one screen (so basically every major war except the Franco-Prussian war) was just not fun, and the more you needed to be good at it, the less fun it became.

I understand that different people enjoy different things. But some moments need intense QoL improvements to not feel like a chore to a lot of players, including me. And if you really add them up (like improve rallying points for armies so they would get into working compositions and left the point to not stack beyond attrition limit; then making so the new armies would march to the front quick enough, but without, again, suffering unnecessary attrition; then making so they would not stay much behind or be encircled if the player focused on another front), you get a system much more automated, much more closer to the current HoI4 or even V3.

I concede that all things are good in moderation, and that one-front-fits-all model, not allowing for envelopments or differentiating between advancing in Westpreußen and defending in Wielkopolskie, is not ideal either. But god, am I happy to not decide whether I can afford just losing dozens of single battalions that mobilized in inconvenient places, or do I have to plan evacuation routes for them for another five minutes.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
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 generally like warfare in Paradox's games. I just dislike the fact that warfare's micromanagement needs grows (faster than) linearly with the size of war.

While I am not totally sold with Victoria 3's warfare concept, I am happy that Paradox is willing to experiment instead of bringing in EU3's warfare system again.

(I also think that Victoria 2's warfare has some pointless complexity in it: There is barely any gameplay purpose for having four different types of cavalry)
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
At least for me, a less detailed warfare could be really good, I don’t want to lose a war because I forget an army and it was encircled by my enemy.

I want to make strategic decisions, select the troops that I send to each front is good but I also want to put objectives to my armies.

For example I want to tell my troops as Germany to sent a fast advance over Belgium to overmanouver the French Army in WWI.

Or in the the Austro-Prussian war, send the German troops to advance over Bohemia and direct to Vienna, avoiding and advance over Galitzia and Hungary.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
oh, you'll have lots to pay attention to if there's a war on. you do get that, don't you?
I really don't get that. I'll mobilize the armies and send them on attack till I win the war since it appears that if they advance, enemy cannot advance so probably I don't even need the defend command unless it's a second front against another country that I need to delay. Worst case scenario is if the AI leave gaps for enemy attack while attacking itself, I'll spare a portion of troops on defend command. That's like 10% of what I normally do for war in Paradox games.
Since when did EU have an economic system? You just own provinces and get money automatically. You put down merchants at the very start of the game and that's it.
Province development also ties into that. Why not eliminate those altogether since apparently nobody likes tedium? I personally dislike merchant juggling as markets and my provinces change throughout the game, I wouldn't mind AI completely handling it while I'm busy with 'more fun things'. In fact maybe we should have a total auto-pilot system for the game so we can just enjoy watching it play itself.

Oh wait, we already can spectate! No tedium there for sure.
I'd say for myself, because it's a perspective I've not seen in the current discussion.
Once again I'll concede that I'd certainly give the benefit of doubt to something similar like HoI4's battle planner system where we didn't handle the minutiae of individual troop movements and such. I'd be okay if they found a middle ground to all this rather than go completely reductionist and remove not only control but also any semblance of detailed feedback and simulation. There's a bunch of 'battalions' which apparently are identical other having how many of what equipment they have based on build options and technology. Then you have the generals which nobody in their right mind will select the bad one for political reasons because we only have a very little amount of levers to pull to affect the outcome of wars. Then all this soup of numbers are distilled into the most generic of two qualifying numbers so we can select either attack or defend and merely feel like we did something.

I recently re-watched Idiocracy and the hospital receptionist literally had way more options to choose from in her console to diagnose the patient's ailment.
GranularNeedyHeron-size_restricted.gif

I generally like warfare in Paradox's games. I just dislike the fact that warfare's micromanagement needs grows (faster than) linearly with the size of war.

While I am not totally sold with Victoria 3's warfare concept, I am happy that Paradox is willing to experiment instead of bringing in EU3's warfare system again.

(I also think that Victoria 2's warfare has some pointless complexity in it: There is barely any gameplay purpose for having four different types of cavalry)
I sympathize with that and that's one reason why I never understood people are loving it every time Paradox announces inflating province numbers in Eastern Europe to add in meaningless tedium to Barbarossa when those places would hardly mean much uniqueness even for the locals. It feels to me that people would still love it if Paradox went with increased complexity here but they instead declare "Victoria isn't a wargame" and snub combat as if they haven't poured way more time to those other games with the tedious combat. It's not like this game had the most to do other than combat just right now, it has always been that for the last 19 years. Yet it had the least frequency of attention from both Paradox and its fans till now. I find it extremely strange to having to do a 1vs5 on this subject where everybody has dozens of those icons under their names. It's like most everyone repented and uninstalled all those other games where you have to constantly juggle 2-3k of men to not see the skull icon pop up and now they're waiting for this.

Anyways I think I expressed my concerns thorough enough on this matter. Now I'll just excuse myself since the tedium of arguing distracts me from more fun things to do. It's a shame that I don't have an AI to command "argue" or "don't argue" for forums.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 7Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I generally like warfare in Paradox's games. I just dislike the fact that warfare's micromanagement needs grows (faster than) linearly with the size of war.

While I am not totally sold with Victoria 3's warfare concept, I am happy that Paradox is willing to experiment instead of bringing in EU3's warfare system again.

(I also think that Victoria 2's warfare has some pointless complexity in it: There is barely any gameplay purpose for having four different types of cavalry)
The best part of Vic 3 is that with careful General selection and the right techs and production methods, you can have a range of "different" cavalry that act with different stats even while the extra unit types are pruned from the game. Depth is preserved while needless complexity is removed. This is a good evolution of game mechanics.
 
  • 9
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I really don't get that.
you'll be focused on depleting resources, depleting workforces, rampant disease, disgruntled IG;s, and bad stuff as well.
 
  • 6
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I said at the time that I wished Stellaris would have a single "Fight The War" button we could press, and it would automatically compute the result and tell us what the outcome was. Given that Stellaris wars are so very long and so very dull, but mostly determined by prewar industrial and scientific capacity as well as the treaties involved, I stand by this hot take.
 
  • 10
  • 9
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
you'll be focused on depleting resources, depleting workforces, rampant disease, disgruntled IG;s, and bad stuff as well.
That's just normal country management that goes on with or without war. Not to mention you don't have additional input to address some of those concerns anyway so I wouldn't consider acknowledging losses as something to focus on. Focusing means thinking on, finding solutions and employing them as far as I'm concerned.
 
  • 11Like
  • 6
Reactions:
I said at the time that I wished Stellaris would have a single "Fight The War" button we could press, and it would automatically compute the result and tell us what the outcome was. Given that Stellaris wars are so very long and so very dull, but mostly determined by prewar industrial and scientific capacity as well as the treaties involved, I stand by this hot take.
Lmao, whats the point of playing grand strategy games if you dont want to use the GRAND STRATEGY part of the game? really i dont understand why guys that dont like to use GRAND STRATEGY play these games.
 
  • 13
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Lmao, whats the point of playing grand strategy games if you dont want to use the GRAND STRATEGY part of the game? really i dont understand why guys that dont like to use GRAND STRATEGY play these games.
Operational manoeuvre micromanagement is very much not grand.
 
  • 23
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I said at the time that I wished Stellaris would have a single "Fight The War" button we could press, and it would automatically compute the result and tell us what the outcome was. Given that Stellaris wars are so very long and so very dull, but mostly determined by prewar industrial and scientific capacity as well as the treaties involved, I stand by this hot take.
Yeah, no
This would render the game IMMENSELY dull
 
  • 8
  • 7
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Operational manoeuvre micromanagement is very much not grand.
neither is deciding clothes factory #265 should be shutdown for being unprofitable and should be replaced with furniture factory #172 as your wood supply is 0.3% larger than your cotton supply.
I guarantee you most vic 2 players used capitalists late game because 'why am I microing this bullshit?'.
Both of these chores could be automated with the option to micro and yet we're getting that for neither of them.
 
  • 9
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Sorry if this is discussed elsewhere in the 54 pages, but recent events IRL have raised some questions.

Is there any diplomatic penalty or Infamy resulting from active troops deployed on a peacetime front? I understand that mobilization is a factor in escalating tensions during a Diplomatic play but does the stationing of permanently standing troops on a border do the same during a Play? Does it have any effects in peacetime when a Diplomatic Play is NOT happening?

Can the moving of a standing army to the border have weaker effects of mobilization during a Play as an intermediate threat?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there any diplomatic penalty or Infamy resulting from active troops deployed on a peacetime front?
As I understand it, there's no such thing as a "peacetime front". Fronts are only established and can only have troops assigned to them once the diplomatic play starts. There's no button to mobilize troops and have them go stand on the border for no reason.

Can the moving of a standing army to the border have weaker effects of mobilization during a Play as an intermediate threat?
I'm not sure what you mean. You have to mobilize your troops before you can assign them to a front. That's true whether they're professional or conscripts.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
That's just normal country management that goes on with or without war. Not to mention you don't have additional input to address some of those concerns anyway so I wouldn't consider acknowledging losses as something to focus on. Focusing means thinking on, finding solutions and employing them as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, that's the point. War is not the primary focus of Victoria 3, or of many other strategy games for that matter. But Victoria 3, for once in a strategy game, is finally going to actually integrate war with the rest of the game as it should be instead of being a completely separate thing that takes up all of your attention whenever it happens, at the expense of the intended core game loop and focus of the game. It's finally something that you have to pay attention to in relation to the main gameplay instead of butting in unwelcomely and becoming the main gameplay.
 
  • 8
  • 4
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Lmao, whats the point of playing grand strategy games if you dont want to use the GRAND STRATEGY part of the game? really i dont understand why guys that dont like to use GRAND STRATEGY play these games.
I want grand strategy, but that includes, you know, strategy, not tactics. What Victoria 3 is doing is finally giving me grand strategy instead of tactics.
 
  • 10
  • 7
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Sorry if this is discussed elsewhere in the 54 pages, but recent events IRL have raised some questions.

Is there any diplomatic penalty or Infamy resulting from active troops deployed on a peacetime front? I understand that mobilization is a factor in escalating tensions during a Diplomatic play but does the stationing of permanently standing troops on a border do the same during a Play? Does it have any effects in peacetime when a Diplomatic Play is NOT happening?

Can the moving of a standing army to the border have weaker effects of mobilization during a Play as an intermediate threat?

The IRL events I think you are referring to would be considered a diplomatic play and several parties have mobilized and stationed troops of their standing army to the front from their Barracks.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The IRL events I think you are referring to would be considered a diplomatic play and several parties have mobilized and stationed troops of their standing army to the front from their Barracks.
That makes sense. I had to re-read the diary because I was confusing mobilization with deploying a conscripted army (the old Vic 2 definition). The rest of my question still stands: Is there an Infamy penalty to having active troops on a front during a Play or is it strictly about diplomatic penalties concerning the Play itself (everyone is more likely to mobilize themselves if their strength is competitive and more likely to give in if their strength is weaker) ?