• 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 assume there will be a factor for distance from the unit's home base to its front. Having a colonial army that can't supply even though the barracks, front, and arms factory are all in the same state would be equally silly, so I think modeling both steps (market -> barracks, barracks -> front) is important.
I would hope it would be market -> barracks initially (to represent their prepared supplies) and then slowly shift to market -> front (as they run out of those prepared supplies and new supplies either have to be shipped in or produced right next to the soldiers).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I have to admit that I am surprised so many PDX GSG players are ok with a mobile style combat system.

I guess the Victoria 3 community is not for me. Bye everyone!
 
  • 23
  • 14
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I have to admit that I am surprised so many PDX GSG players are ok with a mobile style combat system.

I guess the Victoria 3 community is not for me. Bye everyone!
The one thing that surprises me is that it took you this long to see the similarities to mobile games, for me, the first screenshots already did that
 
  • 26
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
They can no longer be supplied by their Barracks, which will cause the General's supply score to drop proportionally to how large a percentage of the force they make up. This in turn decreases the max morale of all troops under that General's command.
So you have eligible pops, military goods and money, but your troops are not supplied because buildings were occupied? So, theoretically, If France builds most of it`s barracks in Elsase, goes to fight Spain or Italy, and then Germany backstabs it, occupying one region would put entire french army out of supply, forever, despite the majority of French territory being free and perfectly capable of supplying army in field?

Also, is it possible to chain wars, to force major power that is already fully mobilized to be unable to do so, till some minor nation on the other side of the globe is defeated?
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
And in both Victoria 1 and Victoria 2 war was a tedious slog requiring the player's full attention whenever it reared its head, and ended up distracting from the larger focuses of the game, the economic, political, and societal management aspects. With Victoria 3 they're finally fixing that oversight.
Yes, war was a tedious slog in those games, mainly due to army management.

With more recent releases such as EU4 and CK3 the army management is much less tedious. They can improve upon what's already there, not just abstract it out the game.
 
  • 19
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The one thing that surprises me is that it took you this long to see the similarities to mobile games, for me, the first screenshots already did that
Tell me you've never looked at a mobile game without telling me you've never looked at a mobile game.
 
  • 24
  • 6Haha
  • 4
Reactions:
Contiguous provinces between two hostile nations act as a single Front, no matter the length. Fronts cannot be divided manually, but if two countries border in two different places they will of course have multiple active Fronts.

We did, in the past, play around with auto-splitting Fronts that went past a certain length into multiples. In the end it didn't add anything to the game and resulted in a lot of logical headaches (how do these Fronts interact when they move? what if the border length decreases again, do the Fronts merge? what if one Front disappears but the other is still valid, what happens to the Generals assigned? etc). In the end what matters in this system is which General is assigned to lead their forces against which country.
Sorry but avoiding these logic problems is not possible and need to be tackled. As single front will still need to split and merge as they they progress pass neutral nations, imparsable terrain, naval invasion fronts and more.

Please practice your design on the american civil war. No one wants Lee fighting sherman out west when he should be defending richmond.

I know marshal fronts in hoi4 are not perfect but a lot of the logic you need is there.

What about imparsable terrain?
 
Last edited:
  • 18
Reactions:
Yes, you build Barracks to recruit soldiers who go into the Garrison by default, and will only leave it if they're assigned to a mobilized General.
Since Barracks are buildings, they hire according to the priorities of normal government buildings do. If they run out of local qualifying Pops to hire they won't forcibly move people from other parts of your country there, but over time people will move there naturally to take those available jobs.

This seems very flawed. It makes total sense for factories, and even some sense for administrative buildings, but military deployment doesn't work like that at all. If you recruit some lads from Yorkshire, you can ship them to Singapore tomorrow, whether they like it or not. You don't build a barracks in Singapore and then wait for the lads to take their sweet time to pack up.
 
  • 16
Reactions:
In CK3, there's a system where within a battle, there are a bunch of advantage rolls that add a bit of extra strength to one side or the other. The trouble is that because each battle consists of many such independent rolls, the variance washes out and the rolls barely matter. Where do you strike the balance of variance with fronts and battles? Does any individual battle really matter if there are going to be many of them before the front is won or lost?

A 100 vs 20 front is a "sure thing", but what ranges of strength ratios do you envision not being a "sure thing"? In a vacuum, how should we think about the odds of victory in a 60 vs 40 front, for example, assuming all else is equal?
All other things being equal and taken as an average, intuitively I'd say the odds of a 60 / 40 Front should work out to about 70 / 30 with this system.

With a traditional system where all troops in a stack are involved in every battle, there can still be a number of variables that smooth out the squared effect of numeric advantage (like combat width, for example) but what it comes down to is usually the dice in that first battle. If the first battle favors the underdog, the post-battle numbers might be 40 / 35 and at this point all bets are off. But if the first battle favors the advantaged side, it might be 55 / 20 and then the rest is just a given.

The other aspect of relevance is that our peace system doesn't necessarily require a front to be "won or lost" - it can sometimes be enough to have made only a partial incursion to force a peace deal, without wiping out the other country's whole army. So even if your 60 / 40 has been reduced to only 30 / 20 and not the big win you hoped for, if you've made gains in the process that might be enough to get what you want. More on peace in a few weeks.
 
  • 34
  • 18Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh, really, what did I get wrong?
The things I just said you got wrong, and all the things I'm about to say you got wrong.
*No way to emulate 19th century warfare as it occurred, check.
Wrong.
Provinces were increased to model frontline movements on a more granular level, particularly so as to better simulate the changing conditions between 1836 and 1936.

*No way to focus on strategic targets or overall goals, check.
In the current build, there doesn't seem to be a way to set specific strategic targets. But that's not going to remain true.

Even in the current build, you still target specific states as wargoals that your generals then prioritize taking.
*Almost no player engagement, check.
"Almost" here can mean everything or nothing. According to lacheck, you spend about 30-60% of your attention during war looking at your fronts.
*Giant fronts which just slam into each, other, check (with a proviso).
Wrong. They don't do that. Battles do not involve the entire front and are limited in scope.
There's also a bunch of other stuff I didn't predict, such as the lack of player agency extending to an inability to fire generals in wartime.
You cannot demobilize a general during wartime. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't replace them. Obviously there must be some mechanic to do so, since generals can die. The wording of the Dev diary strongly implies that you can switch generals during a war:

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.

No, they're not evenly spread, it's worse - armies and generals assigned to a front exist in a state of quantum indeterminacy, everywhere and nowhere at once, until they decide to attack whatever random province they decided to today.
That's the most bad faith way to characterize what we know. At the very least, the game has a way of keeping track of that information, and the degree to which the player can see it remains to be seen.
 
  • 24
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
  • War Changes
I am wondering how does this system meet this design goal? From what I've understood the only way war changes with technology is the amount of provinces won/lost with each battle(aside from modifiers etc)? Or am I missing something? If that's the case that's a bit underwhelming and quite frankly less than war changed in Vicky 2.
It would change just like it did in Vicky 2. The more nations advance and grow their industries and populations the more generals and armies they will be able to field on a front. So at first, just like in Vicky 2 we might have a handful of armies about, meaning there will be fewer but more decisive battles. But late game, we could have millions of men worth of battalions and armies fighting on a single front; so there's more battles, less movement on average per victory and an overall more bloody affair to deal with.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry but avoiding these logic problems is not possible and need to be tackled. As single front will still need to split and merge as they they progress pass neutral nations, imparsable terrain, naval invasion fronts and more.

Please practice your design on the american civil war. No one wants Grant fighting sherman out west when he should be defending richmond.

I know marshal fronts in hoi4 are not perfect but a lot of the logic you need is there.

What about imparsable terrain?
I agree with this... but Im pretty sure you meant Lee, or else that ACW got very strange indeed...
 
  • 6Like
  • 3Haha
  • 3
Reactions:
Impassable terrain exists and will split Fronts, yes. However, since province-based unit movements are not a thing in Victoria 3, there's less need for very small patches of impassable terrain that would otherwise cause a lot of Front fragmentation. Most impassable terrain in Victoria 3 is of the "inhospitable wasteland" variety like deserts and tundra.
Will this be the case in the Andes between Chile and Argentina? In reality that mountain range was practically impassable except for a few places.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
They can no longer be supplied by their Barracks, which will cause the General's supply score to drop proportionally to how large a percentage of the force they make up. This in turn decreases the max morale of all troops under that General's command.
With all due respect the barracks supply the troops do not make sense for me, the industry should supply the troops not the barracks, or maybe barracks suppose to represent the military industry too? and this is just bad nameing?
 
  • 7
Reactions:
I have two questions.
The first one is related to the size of wars, since the DD mention border skirmishes. Will it be possible to keep a war between large nations limited?
Let's say I'm fighting the AI for an interest we both see as secondary, if I mobilize only partially can I expect them to do the same or they will always fight with full strenght? If I win the first few battles, would they accept a peace offer where I ask for less than my original war goal so we can both avoid a costly continuation of the war or it's always a fight to exhaustion? I understand limited wars are possible in theory, but is the AI capable of understanding it?
This is precisely our aim, and so far I'm quite hopeful.
The second question is related to asymmetrical warfare, both internal and international.
Is there a guerrilla tactic? From what I see here only traditional warfare between organized armies is modeled. I think this new system is exceptionally suited to represent also behind the line military actions, anti-rebel operations and so on. Please consider this.
There is no specific "guerilla warfare" mode, though I agree with you that this system is well suited to it and we have discussed it internally already. It's unlikely we can include this for release but it seems very likely to appear in the future. On that note I can also mention that "limited wars" in the sense of wars limited to a certain geographic region (e.g. colonial wars) is also something we think would work very well in this system, and are considering in much the same way.
 
  • 31Like
  • 27
  • 6Love
  • 2
Reactions:
Different tech tiers of military goods are not modelled as separate goods but rather as larger quantities. This doesn't just go for military goods but all goods in the game: increased quality is modeled as an increase in quantity. Better bakeries don't produce different bread, just a larger number of Groceries. When Pops buy better quality clothes, we represent that as more clothes rather than level 5 clothes.

It would of course have been possible for us to add every military invention as new goods, but other than performance concerns it would also have made e.g. the trade game a lot more cumbersome as you'd have to ensure you trade with the country who produces exactly the guns your troops need, and if they switch to something different you have to find a new trading partner, etc.
When it comes to military goods, I'm more inclined to think that quantity is definitely not the same as quality.

1000 antique bronze muzzle loading cannons still can't perform some of the same duties as a 20th century indirect fire heavy pneumatic howitzer that can lob shells several kilometers out of line of sight. Even in an abstract system of combat, there are differences that arise here in the amount of supplies needed, manpower necessary, and the ability to effectively use these items on a certain amount of combat width.

-------------

For trade, it sounds like you guys have it setup through clicking on a foreign country in the diplomacy screen.

A more robust system to handle this would be a contract system. Rather than asking for 100 bolt action rifles per day from Russia who could swap production methods at any time and invalidate the trade,
>>I instead place a contract for 10,000 bolt-action rifles on the world market. Any excess bolt-action rifles available automatically get sold to me. I have the option to set a preferred buyer (like Russia) who I will prioritize purchases first if available. On the seller side, you can set a blacklist through trade embargoes (two options for military and civilian goods) or just have it be dynamic according to country relations on who gets priority for sales of excess military goods.

Moving to an open buyer contract system could potentially eliminate a lot of the trade micromanagement typical of a lot of strategy games IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Your mountain expert will favor defending in the mountains if this is possible. But he can't hunker down in the mountains and never risk getting attacked outside of a mountain province, because he's been charged to defend the entire Austrian front - not to avoid engagements with the enemy if a mountain encounter is impossible. If there are multiple defending Generals on that front though, this increases his chances to only be engaged in his preferred terrain. You tell your Generals who to advance and defend against; they try to accomplish this to the best of their ability given the resources you've made available to them.
I'm personally more than fine with that, as having your mountain expert in the mountains makes sense and giving players the option to not do that wouldn't add any meaningful player agency. But I can see however a problem with generals teleporting. What if I have a front with mountains in the north, plains in the middle, and mountains in the south.... As I cannot select where general Mountain is deployed, will he teleport from the south to the north and back? What if I decide the northern front to be more important? Can I make sure my best mountain general focusses on the northern mountains?
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So how would invading Canada as the United States work? Are my armies just invading random uninhabited boreal forests, or do they actually prioritize attacking populated areas? How does the system interact with terrain and infrastructure? Do my armies actually concentrate attacks in places with better infrastructure? How the heck does this work with certain excellent defensive regions like the Carpathians or the Pyrenees?

I quite like the revealed details about Generals and Battalions, but the fronts leave me scratching my head. Where exactly is the 'high degree of strategic control' over wars that was supposed to compensate for lack of the province-unit paradigm? I thought the system would involve a number of different stances that significantly changed how my armies fought, and the ability to direct my armies at least to attack or defend particular states.

Look, I really hated micro hell of Vic 2, I thought wars were tedious and boring, and I very much preferred to play peacefully. But this seems really barebones and excessively abstracted as an alternative. I'm not outraged since I never played Vic 2 for the war, and I love a lot of other changes in Vic 3, so my reaction is just confused overall.
 
  • 41
Reactions:
I would hope it would be market -> barracks initially (to represent their prepared supplies) and then slowly shift to market -> front (as they run out of those prepared supplies and new supplies either have to be shipped in or produced right next to the soldiers).
I'm not sure I follow. Why don't their prepared supplies have to be sent to the front?

Unless you mean there's no "send to the front" stage before they mobilize which, yes, they don't have a front to be sent to then.

So you have eligible pops, military goods and money, but your troops are not supplied because buildings were occupied?
Yes, because the barracks isn't just literally the barracks where your troops sleep, it's the entire base of operations and logistics for an entire army. If that supply chain gets disrupted, it's going to be extremely difficult to improvise something on the fly.

And yes, France should probably not put all of their barracks in one border province and then leave it completely undefended, but remember that if Germany wants to declare war, it has to go through the escalation process first. That should give plenty of time for France to figure out its strategy. (Unless it thinks it can buy Germany off or scare them away during the diplomatic play, which might work, but would be very risky!)
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
This is precisely our aim, and so far I'm quite hopeful.

There is no specific "guerilla warfare" mode, though I agree with you that this system is well suited to it and we have discussed it internally already. It's unlikely we can include this for release but it seems very likely to appear in the future. On that note I can also mention that "limited wars" in the sense of wars limited to a certain geographic region (e.g. colonial wars) is also something we think would work very well in this system, and are considering in much the same way.
Really love this a lot. This is by far the greatest advantage of this system.

Overall really enthusiastic about the system, although I do have some concerns here and there about lack of strategic control. But as long as the economy and politics are interesting enough that war won't be the main focus, and as long as the war is not arbitrary, I think the system will be totally able to work and I'm super excited for the game!
 
  • 3
Reactions: