Allies in my War Joined My Front and Lost my Land While my Army Waited Around Behind Them

[Ir0nSlug]

I never expected this game to be in a great state in the first few months.

Sorry for the OTT but if I agree with you, I'm getting sick of the fact that we, the players, are collectively enabling Paradox to release games in the disgrace of a state 1.0 Victoria was. As a software developer, if I'd ever released a piece of software in this state, I'd die of shame, and that's the case of any other developer I know. I'm part of the problem, since I bought the game after trying it and knowing its problem, I'm clocking 200 hours and I have fun thanks to the ~30 mods I use, without them I would have let it down and asked for a refund.. A game that still needed several months, maybe a year, of work. And why would Paradox not do it? We buy it anyway, and we keep coming for more. That's bonker. I know Pdx developpers are not happy about it either, they can't be, they want to be proud of the game they spend so many efforts and time on, and they could be. They probably keep going on the though that"we will be proud of it eventually" but they know that it should never had released in this state. I hope they will someday reclaim power. Sorry for the rambling.

 

[xsmilingbanditx]

Yeah AI is terrible.
PS you can get independence from Qing and war reps in the first couple of years. Just rush line Infantry and dow them once the equipment change debuff has expired.
All you need are 40 stacks sitting in your HQ not mobilized and wait a year for Qing to throw its forces at you and keep getting defeated, thinning their battalions.
Once they are thinned, you just need to win one battle and capture a little bit of their territory to go less than zero war score.
At that point, you can put your general to defend, as defence is stronger than offence.
Just make sure that you are making all your barracks and starting your conscription in a single province, ideally your capital

Didn't work for me in several runs. Qing just overwhelmed my troops sooner or later with 1k+ Troops even though being lower Tech.

 

[Violent AI]

Didn't work for me in several runs. Qing just overwhelmed my troops sooner or later with 1k+ Troops even though being lower Tech.

I worked for me in every run I had.
Are you keeping your battalions in your HQ? If they are defending or attacking the front, they are taking 20% attrition, making your battalions weaker. And you should run the Enlistment Efforts decree on the state with your Barracks and Conscription to increase the training rate.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Exactly. AI Allies would never sabotage a player with their incompetence in any other paradox game. The idea is absurd.

Bad point. Obviously AI allies are stupid everywhere but in other games you could always mitigate their stupidity. Here you can't and even more, their stupidity makes you lose war even though without them you would win.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

For me the most absurd is having the whole austrian army teleporting to Korea in the 1800's. Navies, logistics and transportation don't matter at all in this game.

 

[MatthewP]

Sorry for the OTT but if I agree with you, I'm getting sick of the fact that we, the players, are collectively enabling Paradox to release games in the disgrace of a state 1.0 Victoria was. As a software developer, if I'd ever released a piece of software in this state, I'd die of shame, and that's the case of any other developer I know. I'm part of the problem, since I bought the game after trying it and knowing its problem, I'm clocking 200 hours and I have fun thanks to the ~30 mods I use, without them I would have let it down and asked for a refund.. A game that still needed several months, maybe a year, of work. And why would Paradox not do it? We buy it anyway, and we keep coming for more. That's bonker. I know Pdx developpers are not happy about it either, they can't be, they want to be proud of the game they spend so many efforts and time on, and they could be. They probably keep going on the though that"we will be proud of it eventually" but they know that it should never had released in this state. I hope they will someday reclaim power. Sorry for the rambling.

Again, I just look at it a different way. Could paradox have held off release for 6 months and polished the game more? Sure. And when they released it the game would be more polished than it was on release. But you what it wouldn’t be? Better than the game we’ll actually have 6 month from release.

I guess I just don’t feel the outrage, and looking at it without that, I’d rather have a great game sooner, which we’ll clearly get with feedback from the player base a whole lot faster than if paradox just kept doing internal development. So I’m fine with “enabling” paradox to release deep games with really rough edges. I’d much rather do that than enable them by buying a polished but less well-designed game like ck3 (which btw I also bought so I’m part of the problem too ).

BTW I am also a software developer and have absolutely released stuff with dumb bugs. If you haven’t you’re either extraordinary or not working on very complex systems or both.

 

[MJAnderson]

Again, I just look at it a different way. Could paradox have held off release for 6 months and polished the game more? Sure. And when they released it the game would be more polished than it was on release. But you what it wouldn’t be? Better than the game we’ll actually have 6 month from release.

I guess I just don’t feel the outrage, and looking at it without that, I’d rather have a great game sooner, which we’ll clearly get with feedback from the player base a whole lot faster than if paradox just kept doing internal development. So I’m fine with “enabling” paradox to release deep games with really rough edges. I’d much rather do that than enable them but buying a polished but less well-designed game like ck3 (which btw I also bought so I’m part of the problem too ).

BTW I am also a software developer and have absolutely released stuff with dumb bugs. If you haven’t you’re either extraordinary or not working on very complex systems or both.

Do what some smaller studios do and release it as $19.99 Beta version, used the dedicated PDX fanbase as your QC and testing team (which they don't have) then 6 months later release the first DLC at 29.99 that includes expanded features and ideas stolen from all the Mods they write for you.

 

[MatthewP]

For me the most absurd is having the whole austrian army teleporting to Korea in the 1800's. Navies, logistics and transportation don't matter at all in this game.

If Austria sends all its troops to Korea, it will take a huge number of convoys to support and require months to travel. If anyone with a superior navy wants to stop it all they have to do is raid all Austria’s convoys and their morale will drop to zero causing their troops to be crushed due to lack of logistics.

 

[unmerged(148774)]

For me the most absurd is having the whole austrian army teleporting to Korea in the 1800's. Navies, logistics and transportation don't matter at all in this game.

It is a bit much. Austria, which was not a great naval power at the time, should not have the naval range. They should need places to resupply. Either their own colonies or friendly ports. (Allied or treaty)

 

[foamingjetty]

It is a bit much. Austria, which was not a great naval power at the time, should not have the naval range. They should need places to resupply. Either their own colonies or friendly ports. (Allied or treaty)

Agreed. The loss of naval range as a concept in Victoria 3 makes creates kinds of unreasonable outcomes. It also removes all purpose for bases in colonies or tiny islands dotted around the Indian ocean or Pacific, as location has been rendered completely moot. This is a huge loss from Victoria 2.

 

[unmerged(148774)]

Agreed. The loss of naval range as a concept in Victoria 3 makes creates kinds of unreasonable outcomes. It also removes all purpose for bases in colonies or tiny islands dotted around the Indian ocean or Pacific, as location has been rendered completely moot. This is a huge loss from Victoria 2.

I agree. It needs to be added to Victoria 3. It is historically accurate and just makes sense.

 

[Ir0nSlug]

Again, I just look at it a different way. Could paradox have held off release for 6 months and polished the game more? Sure. And when they released it the game would be more polished than it was on release. But you what it wouldn’t be? Better than the game we’ll actually have 6 month from release.

I guess I just don’t feel the outrage, and looking at it without that, I’d rather have a great game sooner, which we’ll clearly get with feedback from the player base a whole lot faster than if paradox just kept doing internal development. So I’m fine with “enabling” paradox to release deep games with really rough edges. I’d much rather do that than enable them by buying a polished but less well-designed game like ck3 (which btw I also bought so I’m part of the problem too ).

BTW I am also a software developer and have absolutely released stuff with dumb bugs. If you haven’t you’re either extraordinary or not working on very complex systems or both.

It's my last post on the subject because it's not the place and spilling this to the view of the Paradox team is not elegant and I almost regret my first post, but I had a bad taste since day one and I guess it had to get out.

I have released stuff with dumb bugs, and I felt like I was bad at a craft I love, and it feels terrible... If you are a software developer then you know how much quality is a paramount concern in the craft, how much of the efforts of the last years went toward finding ways, technical and organizational, to secure ourselves and our users, for a very good reason, software quality is hard and lack of quality feels bad for everyone. It can destroy trust, products and companies.

The worst thing is that I'm pretty sure most of the good faith players would be more than ok with a rough product, if it was the contract they had with the company. It exists and it's called early access or private beta. I know I would, even if it meant paying the exact same price. What's the difference then?, you may ask. Trust and feeling respected. Trust and feeling respected are the difference. And I'm pretty sure Paradox craftmen respect us, I'm sincerely sure they are thriving to make their and our dream games, they are just prisoners of a bad policy mostly enabled, I think, by the lack of a relevant competition in their niche and somewhat luxury market.

 

[MatthewP]

It's my last post on the subject because it's not the place and spilling this to the view of the Paradox team is not elegant and I almost regret my first post, but I had a bad taste since day one and I guess it had to get out.

I have released stuff with dumb bugs, and I felt like I was bad at a craft I love, and it feels terrible... If you are a software developer then you know how much quality is a paramount concern in the craft, how much of the efforts of the last years went toward finding ways, technical and organizational, to secure ourselves and our users, for a very good reason, software quality is hard and lack of quality feels bad for everyone. It can destroy trust, products and companies.

I certainly respect this view. And it is a spectrum, they probably can and should move a bit farther towards the quality side without the extreme of keeping things in house another few months.

I guess my main quibble is that at least one major reason for the quality issues seems clear: this game is extremely innovative and deep. Systems interlock and affect each other in ways that are hard to predict. The UI should be better, but also it's a really hard game to create a good UI for because there's so much information. The war system should be better, but they created a completely new one instead of recycling the same old thing for the 12th time. I go back to CK3 again. I guess it possible CK3 had so much better quality on release because that team just cared more about quality or didn't have deadline pressure. But personally, I doubt it. I think it had much higher quality because the game was much simpler and less novel. And that is the behavior I don't want to support.

The worst thing is that I'm pretty sure most of the good faith players would be more than ok with a rough product, if it was the contract they had with the company. It exists and it's called early access or private beta. I know I would, even if it meant paying the exact same price. What's the difference then?, you may ask. Trust and feeling respected. Trust and feeling respected are the difference. And I'm pretty sure Paradox craftmen respect us, I'm sincerely sure they are thriving to make their and our dream games, they are just prisoners of a bad policy mostly enabled, I think, by the lack of a relevant competition in their niche and somewhat luxury market.

I have a bit less faith here. I think if Paradox made the game early access but kept the same price the complaints would be bitter and numerous.

But a more structural issue is that it's very tricky to apply this with their products, because a game may be perfectly stable and high quality and then a patch comes out and it's early access again. Stellaris went through this ~3 years into development: the game hardly worked for months, the AI was awful for over a year. EU4 did it 6 years into development, recovered a bit faster but still took months.

I don't think it's simple to represent the way Paradox does continuous development with early access or beta tags. And I think overall the model is incredibly good for their games and for players.

 

[Black_Shade]

I have a bit less faith here. I think if Paradox made the game early access but kept the same price the complaints would be bitter and numerous.

The complaints would certainly all still be here- look at something like Mount & Blade Bannerlord. They went the early access route and the game was just getting trashed in the forums.

 

[Major Malfunction]

many such cases

 

[EarlKonrad]

The worst thing is that I'm pretty sure most of the good faith players would be more than ok with a rough product, if it was the contract they had with the company. It exists and it's called early access or private beta. I know I would, even if it meant paying the exact same price. What's the difference then?, you may ask. Trust and feeling respected. Trust and feeling respected are the difference. And I'm pretty sure Paradox craftmen respect us, I'm sincerely sure they are thriving to make their and our dream games, they are just prisoners of a bad policy mostly enabled, I think, by the lack of a relevant competition in their niche and somewhat luxury market.

Instead, influencers (i.e streamers and YouTubers) get the beta copy for free so they can do marketing (be it paid or free) that, more often than not, doesn't accurately represent the final product to the costumer.

PDX is far from the only company that does this, or release bugged and sometimes shallow products. Granted, old PDX had incredibly, incredibly buggy releases so they did improve on that front. Still, they and so many other companies get a free pass on expensive products on account of them having a loyal fanbase.

To be perfectly honest with you, after Imperator, Royal Court and Leviathan I'm not sure how much respect there is to go around. Major blunders shouldn't just simply be swiped under the rug as if they never happened and won't influence future products and/or product perception. But it does, and here we are with Vic 3 where some of it issues have been signaled months, of not years, before the game came out when the features were first shown on DDs, the streams and leaked build.

 

[Son of a Duck]

Again, I just look at it a different way. Could paradox have held off release for 6 months and polished the game more? Sure. And when they released it the game would be more polished than it was on release. But you what it wouldn’t be? Better than the game we’ll actually have 6 month from release.

I guess I just don’t feel the outrage, and looking at it without that, I’d rather have a great game sooner, which we’ll clearly get with feedback from the player base a whole lot faster than if paradox just kept doing internal development. So I’m fine with “enabling” paradox to release deep games with really rough edges. I’d much rather do that than enable them by buying a polished but less well-designed game like ck3 (which btw I also bought so I’m part of the problem too ).

BTW I am also a software developer and have absolutely released stuff with dumb bugs. If you haven’t you’re either extraordinary or not working on very complex systems or both.

The modern Reddit consoomer

 

[Cereal_Comma]

The reason to be hopeful is that a problem like that, while frustrating, seems way easier to fix than teaching the AI to competently micro their armies.

It's a version of a problem that members of the community have been identifying since the leak 6 months ago -- if it's way easier to fix, I wonder when they will?

 

[MinhowMinhow]

If Austria sends all its troops to Korea, it will take a huge number of convoys to support and require months to travel. If anyone with a superior navy wants to stop it all they have to do is raid all Austria’s convoys and their morale will drop to zero causing their troops to be crushed due to lack of logistics.

They just teleport. I played as Brazil, invaded Paraguay, but Austria joined them. Despite Paraguay being landlocked, they sent all their army there.

There is no military logistics in this game. Navies are only for invasions, convoy raiding is just for market trade.

 

[Panzer_King]

Agreed. The loss of naval range as a concept in Victoria 3 makes creates kinds of unreasonable outcomes. It also removes all purpose for bases in colonies or tiny islands dotted around the Indian ocean or Pacific, as location has been rendered completely moot. This is a huge loss from Victoria 2.

Imagine playing India and declaring on Britain for landlocked Hyderabad, an area completely surrounded by your own borders. Half a million English men teleport there from across the world, past your world-class fleet, forcing you to fight them while they receive supplies apparently also delivered by teleportation technology.

1.1 looks like a good start for bugfixing but I can't see myself playing this game until DLC brings us a complete rework of the warfare system.