Victoria 3 isnt focused in war and it hurts

[gjfkgjfj]

so the title, the new dev diary just make it clear, vic 3 wasn't designed for war, war is just a secondary mechanic they didn't wanted to (or couldn't) eliminate from the game, so they copy pasted geopilitik with hoi3 battle interface, i am not mad, i see future in the system, but, making war this simplified is disastrous, they said they wanted to reduce micro but, really is that a good think? this system with micro would be the ultimate warfare system, fronts is a great idea, but having fronts this simplified is so bad...

but, well, is just time to swallow it, war isn't going to be the fun part of this game(i got fun in the micro fest that vic 2 was, the war system wasnt perfect, but satisfactory, like, evaporating huge armies, just because they attacked u in a mountain), the randomization of fronts, i like that, being your general the one deciding where to advance and how, is like real life and i like it, but the atrocious number of fronts, like 1 giant front on the russian front is so devastating for me, encirclements are gone, this system cant simulate it, i am just, sad and happy, i mean, its good to micro a society and his industry, but if i want to do that i would go to democracy 4, or anno, if you going to make GRAND STRATEGY GAMES you should at least don't think in making micro less painfully, but more manageable, in vic 3 they just decided to erase the majority of it, making the GRAND, go to KIND OF STRATEGY GAME, i just hope they expand it, or something.

 

[Sarius1997]

I’m kind of disappointed too. And that is even though I’m on the complete other side of the fence.
Vic2s combat sucked, I hate micro and war shouldn’t be the focus of Vicky. Still this system is… lacking

 

[Blindbohemian]

Play EUIV then.

 

[Kaozarack]

Play Victoria 2 and pretend the military there isn't two times worse than whatever will come from Victoria 3 then

 

[hjarg]

What do you mean by "made clear by this dev diary"? I thought it was clear from the very beginning, when Paradox announced Vicky 3.

 

[Pass_West]

The way some are reacting to these changes, you'd swear the love of their life had just left them for another man.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

so the title, the new dev diary just make it clear, vic 3 wasn't designed for war, war is just a secondary mechanic they didn't wanted to (or couldn't) eliminate from the game, so they copy pasted geopilitik with hoi3 battle interface, i am not mad, i see future in the system, but, making war this simplified is disastrous, they said they wanted to reduce micro but, really is that a good think? this system with micro would be the ultimate warfare system, fronts is a great idea, but having fronts this simplified is so bad...

but, well, is just time to swallow it, war isn't going to be the fun part of this game(i got fun in the micro fest that vic 2 was, the war system wasnt perfect, but satisfactory, like, evaporating huge armies, just because they attacked u in a mountain), the randomization of fronts, i like that, being your general the one deciding where to advance and how, is like real life and i like it, but the atrocious number of fronts, like 1 giant front on the russian front is so devastating for me, encirclements are gone, this system cant simulate it, i am just, sad and happy, i mean, its good to micro a society and his industry, but if i want to do that i would go to democracy 4, or anno, if you going to make GRAND STRATEGY GAMES you should at least don't think in making micro less painfully, but more manageable, in vic 3 they just decided to erase the majority of it, making the GRAND, go to KIND OF STRATEGY GAME, i just hope they expand it, or something.

I just find that disingenuous at best. One of the pillars Paradox has is that War is a continuation of Diplomacy. Great! I mean, really, no sarcasm here. That is indeed great.
Then we get a sneak peek of how Diplomatic plays take place and how a "simple border disagreement" suddenly becomes a war where every single Great Power gets in.
We see how players can do lots of stuff to escalate/de-escalate this.
Then we get to wars. You can mobilize troops and once mobilized you can tell a general to move forward/defend/wait.
THAT, is the problem that everyone is having right now. Not that we can't micro units or whatever, but that for all the other aspects of the game where the player can influence, war is literally a 3-button affair for each general.

 

[Austregisel]

Just play the Victoria 2 Open source project and dont touch Victoria 3

 

[InsidiousMage]

The problem is not the unproductiveness of telling people to go play another game, it is the unproductiveness of people who clearly don't want to play a game coming in and trying to insist that it's redesigned into something they want to play. It achieves nothing.

This, but especially the highlighted part. The game is going to launch with some version of warfare described in the DDs and people complaining about that are doing little more than spamming the forum right now. The devs have made it clear that are they are open to feedback and constructive criticism and I'd be shocked if several of the suggestions from the forum weren't in the launch version of the game or at least the first patch.

 

[Call Me Vandal]

Games are designed for a particular audience, not to be all things for all people.

If you are not part of the audience for a game, it is not designed for you.

If a game is not designed for you, you are not the audience.

If you are not the audience for a game and you're insisting it should be designed for you instead of for its audience, you are wrong. You should play a different game.

There is literally no other productive way to respond to people going "I'm not the audience for this game and I want it to be designed for me instead of who it's designed for" except to tell them to play games they might enjoy.

The problem is not the unproductiveness of telling people to go play another game, it is the unproductiveness of people who clearly don't want to play a game coming in and trying to insist that it's redesigned into something they want to play. It achieves nothing.

If you're trying to tell them that the focus of V3 is diplomacy, economics, and politics, not warfare, then say that. Recommend them EU4, even.

But you didn't explain any of this to them, you just told them to go and play some other game. It's hard not to take that as a crass dismissal ... but then, maybe that was the point.

 

[Blindbohemian]

If you're trying to tell them that the focus of V3 is diplomacy, economics, and politics, not warfare, then say that. Recommend them EU4, even.

But you didn't explain any of this to them, you just told them to go and play some other game. It's hard not to take that as a crass dismissal ... but then, maybe that was the point.

If they are on the forum, reading the forum, and they haven’t put two and two together with respect to the above then crass dismissal is exactly what they deserve.

 

[Vernichtere]

Games are designed for a particular audience, not to be all things for all people.

If you are not part of the audience for a game, it is not designed for you.

If a game is not designed for you, you are not the audience.

If you are not the audience for a game and you're insisting it should be designed for you instead of for its audience, you are wrong.

There is no productive way to respond to people going "I'm not the audience for this game and I want it to be designed for me instead of who it's designed for" except to tell them to play games they might enjoy.

The problem is not the unproductiveness of telling people to go play another game, it is the unproductiveness of people who clearly don't want to play a game coming in and trying to insist that it's redesigned into something they want to play. It achieves nothing.

This is not the first game in the series, it is in a certain tradition. It's not as if someone came into "the sims" forum and complained about the lack of war. Here an area is being revised which is important to a large number of people. The reactions are understandable.

Let's put it this way. I am relatively neutral about the matter. In fact, I really enjoy playing domestic politics. But it is not as if we have already presented an absolutely convincing concept. The loud voices are the loud voices. There are still a lot of people who just wait and see. And in the event of the failure of the mechanics of war, they cannot be shaken off with the argument that the game is not about war. After a little shouting, they'll just throw the game in the corner. Then I won't get any DLCs or patches.

The game has to be reasonably convincing on a strict level when it comes to war. Otherwise it is a mistake. The game series is not a pure economic simulation. You will lose customers very quickly because fans will be disappointed

 

[Koba133]

Victoria is a cult series but it's a niche series, they have to get it right the first time. The devs attitude saying warfare is no big deal and "we'll work on it later" is worrying. I hope this doesn't turn into another imperator because otherwhise everything I saw about the game looks top notch.

 

[acidsun]

The real truth that hurts and no one wants to admit it is that war in every paradox game except HoI is terrible by nature and enjoying and defending it is cognitive dissonance

 

[prismaticmarcus]

But you didn't explain any of this to them,

it's safe to assume that these whingers have a concept of what the game is

 

[prismaticmarcus]

you will lose customers very quickly

if they gain more it's a net plus

 

[Vernichtere]

if they gain more it's a net plus

First, I wanted to say that people are not criticizing something completely absurd here. The game isn't entirely new and a lot of people liked the war portion too.

I don't know why you should get more people now. I like the ideas so far. But they are further developments and not huge leaps. While I can understand the logic behind the revision of the war, if it isn't interesting in practice, the game will have massive sales problems. The base of the fans is not particularly large and you cannot do without the friends of the war.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Famous words when you'll suddenly care when you go to war and wondering why it's so unsatisfying.

Jokes on you: I hate war and I just want to garden my society.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I don't know why you should get more people now. I like the ideas so far. But they are further developments and not huge leaps. While I can understand the logic behind the revision of the war, if it isn't interesting in practice, the game will have massive sales problems. The base of the fans is not particularly large and you cannot do without the friends of the war.

Not everyone enjoys the war aspects of Paradox games and having a Paradox game that doesn't have a massive war focus might bring in new players who wouldn't have otherwise bought the game. Paradox may be trying to reach a new audience with Vicky3 and thus the change in the warfare system. Creating games that reach out to new audiences is necessary for any game studio and Vicky3 may be an attempt by Paradox to do just that.

 

[Zhetone]

Famous words when you'll suddenly care when you go to war and wondering why it's so unsatisfying.

most paradox games already have very unsatisfying military systems. victoria 2's is terrible and war is just a massive chore in eu4. I enjoy the results of wars much more than actually going through with them, it's the same rote abuse of the ai every war. bring in troops, draw the enemy into unsuitable terrain/a fort, throw more soldiers on them, rinse and repeat, every paradox game, minus hoi 4, which has its own problems

if you genuinely find paradox games' combat satisfying I don't really know what to say