Can someone explain how the USA is supposed to take just Louisiana with the current frontlines?

  • 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.
The two things that matter are: a) are there meaningful and fun gameplay actions and decisions for the player to influence the results of wars? b) do the war abstractions create results that are within a range of realistic expectations? Nobody has played the game yet, so I don't think we can really speak to either question, but I think it's definitely possible to succeed in both areas with the system that they have laid out.

I think you said it all here. What's important is that the player still have meaningful actions and decisions to take. If, once the war starts all the player can do is watch as the front advance then gameplay-wise the game will have failed.
The player needs to be able to influence the outcome of a war, if things are going well, the player should be able to influence the AI to push its advantage even further or if the situation isn't looking too good, the player should be able to try to stabilize the front in a more meaningful way than simply throwing more men into the meat grinder.
 
  • 9Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm very upset to say from what i've seen my concerns have come true. I really hope there's more in the works with how fronts work because I don't even think this system can do nearly any historical war correctly.
 
  • 11
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
i had a lightbulb moment earlier today. i think that everyone (including me) has been looking at wars as being armies moving around on the map.

but i think vic3 is trying to stay away from that altogether.

you (the leader of the country) are seeing war from the perspective of someone sitting at a desk and being bombarded with reports coming from all over the world.

i might be wrong but that's what it looks like to me.
 
  • 11
  • 8
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
i had a lightbulb moment earlier today. i think that everyone (including me) has been looking at wars as being armies moving around on the map.

but i think vic3 is trying to stay away from that altogether.

you (the leader of the country) are seeing war from the perspective of someone sitting at a desk and being bombarded with reports coming from all over the world.

i might be wrong but that's what it looks like to me.

Yes. However you are also managing your nation's shoelace supply.
 
  • 10Haha
  • 9Like
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
i had a lightbulb moment earlier today. i think that everyone (including me) has been looking at wars as being armies moving around on the map.

but i think vic3 is trying to stay away from that altogether.

you (the leader of the country) are seeing war from the perspective of someone sitting at a desk and being bombarded with reports coming from all over the world.

i might be wrong but that's what it looks like to me.
I think this is exactly what the devs are trying to capture here, though this doesn't really jive with the level of control we have in other areas such as who owns what, what kind of people are employed where, and where each and every building is built.

The problem is that even the President of the United States of America had the ability to order, for example, Sherman to march to the sea or the Mississippi Campaign. Zero strategic input just takes a system which I don't actually mind too much and makes it frustrating and unwieldy.
 
  • 18
  • 1Like
Reactions:
i had a lightbulb moment earlier today. i think that everyone (including me) has been looking at wars as being armies moving around on the map.

but i think vic3 is trying to stay away from that altogether.

you (the leader of the country) are seeing war from the perspective of someone sitting at a desk and being bombarded with reports coming from all over the world.

i might be wrong but that's what it looks like to me.

You are THE bureaucrat, I actually kinda like thinking like this. ( The game needs a bit more hands off in economy and trade then so you can truly become THE bureaucrat ).
 
  • 7
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Sadly, the fallacy behind current system is caused by weird implementation of the whole concept of strategy. Yes, generals are in charge of armies. But in war, militaries had and still have to fulfill political objectives, and those can change during the war. It is absolutely possible and in fact common for political leadership to give goals to the military in order to gain more weigh at the negotiating table.

War is continuation of diplomacy, anyone?
 
  • 18Like
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
i had a lightbulb moment earlier today. i think that everyone (including me) has been looking at wars as being armies moving around on the map.

but i think vic3 is trying to stay away from that altogether.

you (the leader of the country) are seeing war from the perspective of someone sitting at a desk and being bombarded with reports coming from all over the world.

i might be wrong but that's what it looks like to me.
Reports of your armies doing things inaccurately and with none of the tactics of the time.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The lack of control and player agency in the current system is surprising. I would at least like the control level of a politician - able to influence all of the general ranks, put pressure for lower critical officer positions, telegraph or send new orders, managing force structure (for instance this is when you start to see modern specialist divisions like artillery), writing rules of engagement and dealing with unruly generals, etc. This is the point where orders from the top started reaching everyone, where control of the military started to become more heirarchical toward the central government simply by virtue of better control and information. The current system removes too much agency and control, and unfortunately this is at the expense of immersion. I understand they want to avoid micro, but more difficult choices are a good thing, not a bad one, and it would be a shame if one part of the game is notably less robust than other parts. If they want to avoid tactical or micro considerations, then they can focus on bringing strategy to it and introducing realistic, difficult and dangerous strategical decisions with regards to supplies, management, political officers, propaganda reports for the public on broadsheets, force structure and rules of command.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
rules of command.
what springs to mind is being able to tell a general, 'in this area, act like this. but in that area do that'
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't understand the lack of a battle-plan. I don't mean a meticulously crafted battle-plan with all nooks and crannies covered, but...when Germany invaded Belgium, they had a plan...it's even pretty famous and had its very own name, the "Schlieffen Plan", named after Alfred von Schlieffen, and described how to invade France and Belgium! It's one of the most famous battle plans, for god's sake! Germany had a plan on how to advance in the Austro-Prussian war and another one for the Franco-Prussian war. EVERY nation had a battle plan for their wars. It wasn't just Generals doing whatever they wanted because they felt like it. They had goals (not the general war goals of Vicky 3, but strategic war goals) and a general direction (don't try to go through the Alps into France, thank you very much).
This is all I'm asking for.

- Strategic war goals
- Arrows for Advance orders, telling the general "Attack in that general direction!"


I don't want anything else. I like the fronts system, even though a General stretching along all of the front is strange. But these two points are the bare-minimum of what I expect. And Paradox underdelivers in this particular case and I hate it.
 
  • 11
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't understand the lack of a battle-plan. I don't mean a meticulously crafted battle-plan with all nooks and crannies covered, but...when Germany invaded Belgium, they had a plan...it's even pretty famous and had its very own name, the "Schlieffen Plan", named after Alfred von Schlieffen, and described how to invade France and Belgium! It's one of the most famous battle plans, for god's sake! Germany had a plan on how to advance in the Austro-Prussian war and another one for the Franco-Prussian war. EVERY nation had a battle plan for their wars. It wasn't just Generals doing whatever they wanted because they felt like it. They had goals (not the general war goals of Vicky 3, but strategic war goals) and a general direction (don't try to go through the Alps into France, thank you very much).
This is all I'm asking for.

This actually makes me think it could be interesting (and probably quite challenging) if Generals created their war plans and shared them with us. It's not direct control (which I understand why you want) but was curious about potentially new ways to approach it. Would be interesting to see a lot of different suggestions from many generals.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
This actually makes me think it could be interesting (and probably quite challenging) if Generals created their war plans and shared them with us. It's not direct control (which I understand why you want) but was curious about potentially new ways to approach it. Would be interesting to see a lot of different suggestions from many generals.

Something along the lines of each general having their preferred strategy, and choosing a general means you also endorse their plan?
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Something along the lines of each general having their preferred strategy, and choosing a general means you also endorse their plan?
Yeah. I thought of it when I read "Schlieffen Plan" in the post I quoted and figured a variety of Generals could have plans created for particular fronts in the event of war. Could even have the plans named after the general.

I think that an implementation like this would be challenging to implement for sure, and it's not going to do much to appease anyone that has desires for more direct control. But yeah I could see a variety of of ways it could be done, from hard plans to maybe providing you with some options. Then yes, setting a general to the front serves as an approval for their plan maybe?

Just spit balling as I just thought of it but it'd be an interesting way to still have some degrees of player decision making. Plans could also be impacted by general skills, or what type of plan you'd like (offense vs defense) and whatnot.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, I'm not getting this game until the military aspect gets a major overhaul. This is just far too desolate for me.
 
  • 5
  • 5
Reactions:
Yeah. I thought of it when I read "Schlieffen Plan" in the post I quoted and figured a variety of Generals could have plans created for particular fronts in the event of war. Could even have the plans named after the general.

I think that an implementation like this would be challenging to implement for sure, and it's not going to do much to appease anyone that has desires for more direct control. But yeah I could see a variety of of ways it could be done, from hard plans to maybe providing you with some options. Then yes, setting a general to the front serves as an approval for their plan maybe?

Just spit balling as I just thought of it but it'd be an interesting way to still have some degrees of player decision making. Plans could also be impacted by general skills, or what type of plan you'd like (offense vs defense) and whatnot.

Agreed; one general may have a better plan though lack the skills to pull it off (or vice versa). Maybe a very abbreviated version of law change debates could take place between various factions (lead by the generals advocating for one strategy or another), such as the warhawks vs the doves?

This debate on strategy could maybe act as an incentive/disincentive for assigning multiple generals to a front; something like, more generals makes agreement on strategy harder to establish (too many cooks in the kitchen), though more generals likely means that you have more skills/tools available to confront an enemy with on the border (especially if a rather lengthy one)?


Other game features do put an emphasis on timing.

In the context of elections, even if you knew with certainty that an offensive plan would work, executing such a plan before an election (where casualties could result in the warhawks losing to the doves) could jeapordize the larger political strategy (or discredit a chosen strategy, with or without its merits); and, vice versa, waiting for after the election (where the border staring contest at least does not impact war enthusiasm much) would allow for greater gains when the offensive execution is launched.

If one knows when the election of their war opponents take place, the decision of when to advance or hold may allow a player to use their enemy's own politics against them as well.

If political sabotage/espionage is a feature, maybe these plans between enemies can be discovered, &/or disloyal generals can be used to throw a wrench in the gears of settling on or executing a plan?

(Fingers crossed for the next dev diary. ;))
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm seriously not understanding how the frontline system is supposed to simulate real tactics in Important historical wars of the vicky 2 time period.


How am I supposed to take Louisiana? How am I supposed to push for Atlanta? How am I supposed to get around DC?


How am I supposed to take mexico city? Can my naval invasion do a march to mexico city or will they slowly take over all of southern mexico?
This is actually directly related to another issue that I've been musing on for quite awhile now:

I don't think any Paradox game really does justice to the importance of geographical concerns in general and rivers more specifically. Other than some passive bonuses (like farmland provinces being clustered around rivers in EU4, or defensive bonuses for river crossings), the vital role that rivers have played through literally every point in history, even to the present day (the Mississippi is vital to North American bulk commodities because of its transportation function alone), is not well represented.

CK2 and 3 somewhat help by allowing you to transport armies along rivers in specific circumstances, and HOI allows you use rivers for your front lines, but thats about it.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
This is actually directly related to another issue that I've been musing on for quite awhile now:

I don't think any Paradox game really does justice to the importance of geographical concerns in general and rivers more specifically. Other than some passive bonuses (like farmland provinces being clustered around rivers in EU4, or defensive bonuses for river crossings), the vital role that rivers have played through literally every point in history, even to the present day (the Mississippi is vital to North American bulk commodities because of its transportation function alone), is not well represented.

CK2 and 3 somewhat help by allowing you to transport armies along rivers in specific circumstances, and HOI allows you use rivers for your front lines, but thats about it.
One should distinguish between "rivers" and "navigable rivers". Some are too shallow for major traffic, some have rapids, and some simply don't lead to anything important. Others tie key cities and/or resources together, and become major transport routes. Canals were often used to turn less-navigable waterways into useful ones, or connect nearby waterways. Railroads gradually usurped a large share of the workload in many areas, rendering many or most canals economically non-viable, but moving bulk cargo by barge to coastal ports/cities is still an important function. By the end of the game, the importance of roads should begin to be felt, as truck traffic gradually becomes a "thing".

More than just small bonuses or penalties to productivity, there should be major adjustments in the construction costs and times and maintenance costs of infrastructure and certain buildings in regions where they're difficult to construct. Building a railroad across the Sahara Desert simply shouldn't be an option. Cutting a canal across the Isthmus of Panama should be all but impossible until the tools to do so are invented, and it will STILL be a massive and costly undertaking for even a major power. Building a railroad through/over a mountain range should be extremely expensive and slow, with reduced productivity due to its high maintenance costs. Still, if you NEED to move stuff across it, the higher costs may be well worth it.

The cost differences due to natural features had a huge impact on what was built where, and should do so in the game as well. It was no accident that most major cities developed along rivers or near a river mouth. It was also no accident that small towns along rail lines typically experienced rapid growth compared to those bypassed by the newly-built rail systems. Generally speaking, in-game effects should have a cause, not just happen randomly.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
One should distinguish between "rivers" and "navigable rivers". Some are too shallow for major traffic, some have rapids, and some simply don't lead to anything important. Others tie key cities and/or resources together, and become major transport routes. Canals were often used to turn less-navigable waterways into useful ones, or connect nearby waterways. Railroads gradually usurped a large share of the workload in many areas, rendering many or most canals economically non-viable, but moving bulk cargo by barge to coastal ports/cities is still an important function. By the end of the game, the importance of roads should begin to be felt, as truck traffic gradually becomes a "thing".

More than just small bonuses or penalties to productivity, there should be major adjustments in the construction costs and times and maintenance costs of infrastructure and certain buildings in regions where they're difficult to construct. Building a railroad across the Sahara Desert simply shouldn't be an option. Cutting a canal across the Isthmus of Panama should be all but impossible until the tools to do so are invented, and it will STILL be a massive and costly undertaking for even a major power. Building a railroad through/over a mountain range should be extremely expensive and slow, with reduced productivity due to its high maintenance costs. Still, if you NEED to move stuff across it, the higher costs may be well worth it.

The cost differences due to natural features had a huge impact on what was built where, and should do so in the game as well. It was no accident that most major cities developed along rivers or near a river mouth. It was also no accident that small towns along rail lines typically experienced rapid growth compared to those bypassed by the newly-built rail systems. Generally speaking, in-game effects should have a cause, not just happen randomly.

Agreed whole heartedly. In fact, just distinguishing between navigable and non-navigable rivers is the bare minimum. There are estuaries where ocean going ships can sail up (such as going up the Hudson all the way to Albany) and others that, while extremely navigable, can only accomodate barge traffic, like the Mississippi. Speaking of Albany, there's a reason why cities are often founded further inland along rivers, because that might be the limit for ocean going ships, or it might be at the fall line, where the river becomes generally non-navigable, etc. Then, as you've mentioned, there's rivers that, while generally non-navigable, can be canalized so as to become navigable. And this is, of course, well before considering the entire issue of canals themselves (which I know the Devs have said they have thoughts about).

Or how about the freezing and thawing of rivers? Another key factor. Especially, for example, in Russia and Siberia, where the north-flowing rivers thaw out from their sources down to their mouths, resulting in massive ice dams, rendering said rivers much less useful (actually, rendering them as major obstacles).

And yes, trains and trucks do have their place, with (at least in our current age) trains being the middle ground between canals and trucks in terms of flexibility and cost (a truck can go almost anywhere, but is the most expensive of the 3, a canal or river can only go along its given route, but is the cheapest, and rail is in between).

I don't want to derail this thread on the military aspects further, but this is something that I think could be a big step up for the next generation of Paradox games.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
In the context of elections, even if you knew with certainty that an offensive plan would work, executing such a plan before an election (where casualties could result in the warhawks losing to the doves) could jeapordize the larger political strategy (or discredit a chosen strategy, with or without its merits); and, vice versa, waiting for after the election (where the border staring contest at least does not impact war enthusiasm much) would allow for greater gains when the offensive execution is launched.
Ooo.

I think just in general having your population respond with electoral demands during consequences of war would be fascinating. A lot of avenues to look at this IMO.
 
  • 1
Reactions: