Victoria 3 isnt focused in war and it hurts

[Paul-Alain Léger]

Late game wars are frustrating for me in EUIV as well. After 1650 or so, it becomes quite boring.

Against the AI yes, I'm referring to mp games to be fair. Sometimes it gets confusing, but it's all down to skill at the end of the day, you massively improve on it the more exposure you get.

I can't see Vic3's system a system where one can improve on, except perhaps on a few minor things, like match the General with the terrain despite a lower lvl skill etc (just an assumption obviously)

 

[Sarmatian]

Against the AI yes, I'm referring to mp games to be fair. Sometimes it gets confusing, but it's all down to skill at the end of the day, you massively improve on it the more exposure you get.

I can't see Vic3's system a system where one can improve on, except perhaps on a few minor things, like match the General with the terrain despite a lower lvl skill etc (just an assumption obviously)

Well, there are many possibilities with the new system to allow player to influence wars. It will certainly depend on implementation. Either way, it would certainly be more indirect type of control, which is understandably a huge issue for some. I might like it, if it end ups being done well. At the end of the day, I wouldn't mind HOI system, where I can delegate to AI if I want to and how much I want to, but I'm waiting to see how this new approach will work.

So far, it seems to me that most of it will happen BEFORE the war, not DURING, and that might be problematic, along with front system which is still very questionable to me.

Honestly, I'm also not very keen on how simplified economy appears, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

 

[Alpha2518]

To be fair, most of those wars couldn't be simulated under previous system either, so a lot of them had to be scripted. Let's not allow potential flaws of the new system blind us to the fault of the old system.

Personally, I don't demand (or particularly desire) direct control over army units. It's just that it seems there won't be much ability to influence wars during wars themselves, and there might be potential problem with front sizes. They might work on a limited scale, but what happens when there's one giant border, like maybe if rising China goes to war against Russia while the war goal is some island in the Pacific? Or the opposite, when there's two giant armies over a tiny land border, like a huge Brazil that is in control of most of South America vs a giant US that controls North and Central America and the border is in Panama?

Such situations must be taken into account.

Which is why an incremental change should be used from what we know works. You got your automation and soon as you draw the frontline and battleplan and then click go while still retaining the detailed player control. This literally works in limited scale situations, to giant borders, or some island paradise in the middle of the ocean and your opposite cases as well

I can't believe I have to make this analogy. But look at what the USA did with the M3 scout car. You notice the front looks like a half track. Well that is because that's exactly what the USA did. They took what they knew worked, made an incremental change and now they had their half track. Same thing they did with the M3 Grant to the M4 Sherman. They didn't do massive radical departures and their designs were very successful as a result. This is what the Devs should be doing in regards to warfare and they have literal sister series to draw from and are acting like they don't exist in trying to manage the warfare aspect of the game.

 

[Paul-Alain Léger]

Well, there are many possibilities with the new system to allow player to influence wars.

I'm afraid not as it stands. They might change it and add more player interaction but that's only after the division they themselves caused

 

[Sharkseant]

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

No not at all.
like let’s take Stellaris you can’t fight battles but you can decide how your ships are armed and adapt this to your opponents fleets you have to repair your ships have to build new ones to replace the losses and most importantly you can plan where to attack etc. and plan the Attack Ranges etc. so I have 3 big fleets and one smaller one I use the two biggest ones and the smaller one to attack at their most valuable regions while my other big fleet mostly just defends my uncolonised Second border with my opponent. And then I have to split my fleets due to the different systems and decide where if I monomanes the planet or just invade etc. and of course in early game the Star bases also do still matter.

In EUIV is similarly built but here you also have way more „tiles“ so you can Manouver and attack where you need and do more evasive or surrounding stuff. Also you have to Siege much more making split up more complicated

Ck3 is basically like EUIV

in Vic2 as far as I could see it was like EUIV slowly turning into Hoi except there were no frontlines and the entire command hub thing. So you had to micro

 

[Sharkseant]

This strikes as a bit disingenuous because although people are arguing about mechanics the actual substance of the debate is about the approach to a specific aspect of the game. Mana is a mechanic but the changes to warfare in Vicky3 are a fundamental change to the way the devs are designing it compared to other Paradox games. Players are not going to able to micro things like they can in other games regardless of what the specific mechanics end up being so if you are into micro managing units on the map then Vicky3 isn't the game for you and you should play something else. The devs are taking suggestions but ones that fit within the framework of the mechanics that they are using. Suggesting that players should be able to micro units on the map isn't really suggestion because it isn't going to happen.


"Jack of all trades but master of none." This is a real problem with games that try and do as much as they can. Vicky3 is a society sim, as the devs have repeatedly said, so they are going to try and make politics and economics as good as they can. And, since devs only have a limited of resources, which include time and money, other systems are going to be less well developed, which includes warfare in the case of Vicky3. Now, I seriously doubt that the devs want warfare in the game to be bad but, given the focus of the game, it is just never going to be as good as the rest of the game because war isn't a primary mechanic.

But Vic2 had units etc.

 

[Sharkseant]

1. I am sorry that I did not use the forums quite system

2. I explain why I dislike the new system: you start the war etc and then wait.

if we were able to command the troops in some kind of level it would be ok. Like if we were only allowed to use the frontlines and up to where they can advance in vic3 I would already be happy.

and the new system is especially bad for small nations. Like I can’t imagine any way I could lead a German minor to victory, like I normslky would first take out some comparable sized neighbors and slowly work myself up. Now I need somebody way weaker to have reasonable chance to win.

This also is frustrating for pvp. Lets
say we have a ww1 like scenario. And both parties would be comparbly evenly matched due to them being players.

now both players reasonably well set up their war and it starts.

and then both players basically wait of course ww1 was quite little movement but there was war and advances etc. but not for the player.

and the end is like: aha I won nice I guess
The winning player won’t feel much accomplishment because he did not win the war the so did. And the other player will feel frustrated because thieves nothing he could have changed to win the war but now he lost a third of his pops and

 

[grommile]

vettoria and a longer period and above all of peace

"Peace".

That's an interesting claim to make about the period 1836-1913.

Oh, I dare say it felt peaceful enough to a well-to-do Englishman, enjoying tea and scones while he reads in The Times about some unpleasantness on a distant shore, but to call it an era of peace verges on nonsense.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

To be fair, most of those wars couldn't be simulated under previous system either, so a lot of them had to be scripted. Let's not allow potential flaws of the new system blind us to the fault of the old system.

Personally, I don't demand (or particularly desire) direct control over army units. It's just that it seems there won't be much ability to influence wars during wars themselves, and there might be potential problem with front sizes. They might work on a limited scale, but what happens when there's one giant border, like maybe if rising China goes to war against Russia while the war goal is some island in the Pacific? Or the opposite, when there's two giant armies over a tiny land border, like a huge Brazil that is in control of most of South America vs a giant US that controls North and Central America and the border is in Panama?

Such situations must be taken into account.

It works both ways, flaws from the previous system shouldn't be used to excuse flaws of the new system either. After all, Victoria 3 is supposed to be an improvement from Victoria 2. And apart from making sure that there won't be some tedious micro during wars in the late game, I don't see this new system as an improvement from the previous one especially if we look, as you rightfully pointed out, at the apparent lack of ability for the player to influence a war during its progress, I would even said that, with what we saw so far, it's a downgrade when it comes to player's agency.

 

[DominusNovus]

Maybe it is a matter of regional usage, but that would be "guarded optimism" to the ears around here in New England.

As a fellow New Englander, I use 'cautious optimism' to mean that I hope things will work out, I have some faith that they'll work out, but I don't want to get my hopes up. If I'm being superstitious in the moment, I'm just trying to avoid the evil eye with my optimism.

The most common reason for me to be cautiously optimistic is when I've had what I felt was a good job interview.

 

[EUnderhill]

As a fellow New Englander, I use 'cautious optimism' to mean that I hope things will work out, I have some faith that they'll work out, but I don't want to get my hopes up. If I'm being superstitious in the moment, I'm just trying to avoid the evil eye with my optimism.

The most common reason for me to be cautiously optimistic is when I've had what I felt was a good job interview.

We do wait for the other shoe to drop, don't we...

 

[Acularius]

Looks like we're getting Political Parties so hopefully, we will get War Objectives (some modicum of control of the direction of our armies).
Link to Post (Twitter Teaser Thread)

 

[wilcoxchar]

Looks like we're getting Political Parties so hopefully, we will get War Objectives (some modicum of control of the direction of our armies).
Link to Post (Twitter Teaser Thread)

Glad to see them concentrating on putting the detailed mechanics where they actually belong in an economy, politics, diplomacy, and society based game: in the economic, political, diplomatic, and society management mechanics. Very excited for the addition of political parties.

 

[Faeelin]

Even if you concede that this game is not focused on warfare, it feels very odd. This game is designed for the people who yearn to play the British Empire and that's about it ATM.

 

[Secret Master]

I'm going to go ahead and close this thread for the moment. Might be reopened once it gets cleaned up.

 

[DebbieElla]

Thread cleaned up and re-opened. Stay on topic, keep to the rules.

 

[Atomcreator]

I will never understand all these people moaning about something that they haven't even tried yet. It all must be taken in context. If the game works very well with all the systems they have chosen, then we will have a winner. Before you moan about it, please take the opportunity to try it all out.
If then, the game is not for you, but many others like it, then do something else instead. Its very easy really.

 

[Kovax]

There are tactical games, strategy (operational level) games, and grand strategy games (not a lot of the last). EU and HOI are "strategy games", dealing with warfare on a scale well above the tactical, with considerations for objectives, supply, and other important "operational level" considerations that are "behind the scenes" in a tactical game. They cover "grand strategy" to some degree as well, although the player's actions are mostly at the operational level.

Now there's V3, which is apparently taking "strategy" out of the game, and leaving ONLY the "grand strategic" level, and not even much of that. Consider a long front; do you push toward an objective such as a source of resources in the north to deprive the enemy of materials, or toward the populous cities in the south to deprive the enemy of manpower? Do you push straight for the enemy's capital, or attempt to defeat his army in the field before advancing further? Those are GRAND STRATEGY considerations. Unfortunately, we've been shown only "Attack" or "Defend" across the entire front as options. That's basically taking warfare out of the game except as a drain on production and manpower, and seeing who runs out first. While that MAY be somewhat valid for wars between the large industrialized nations during the last few decades of the timeline, it's NOTHING like warfare in 1836, or in many parts of the world at any date during the course of the game.

I would even postulate that it's wrong for what followed, as the political decisions for Germany to pursue an advance on Moscow (for a hopefully short war) or on the Caucasus (for a long war) were critically important during WWII, and vacillating between them was a costly mistake. "Strategy" seems to have been reduced to pushing the big "I Win" button, and letting the AI do the rest.

 

[JohnnyDepressio]

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

That is an accurate description of my feelings about this.

 

[NeuroticTrev]

I didn't enjoy microing late game wars across multiple continents in V2. Having to combine conscripts with ready made arty/cav/eng/etc stacks was particularly annoying. ON the other hand, the micro did allow the player to pull off upsets over greater powers. I think the new system has potential but it needs to be fleshed out. There should be more strategic (and detailed) options than simply attack/defend and more control over of the focal points of of your strategic decisions. If I set a general to defend in the American Civil War, what the hell does it this mean across an over thousand mile front? I'm very open to the new concept of managing fronts, but player decision making should factor in more than simply setting up the logistics/arming/recruitment/doctrines of armies and setting generals to attack or defend across an entire front. I already have a feeling that the first DLC will be aimed at improving warfare with a more immersive experience.