• 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.
My apologies if this has been answered but I still haven't been able to find out if the AI will pay military maintenance in Vic 2. If someone knows could he/she enlighten me?

Also, will the AI be able to disband troops/ships (other than at new technology points, a la ships for Vic 1)?
 
My apologies if this has been answered but I still haven't been able to find out if the AI will pay military maintenance in Vic 2. If someone knows could he/she enlighten me?

Also, will the AI be able to disband troops/ships (other than at new technology points, a la ships for Vic 1)?

Ohh, good question, Best answer I can give you is "I hope so"

They can demobilize their reserves once a war is over, does that count?
 
I am amazed at the number of people who want their historical leaders: I know how fun it is to have your favourite general running aorund, but epecially once you've played 50 years of the game, the chances of that person being born, or even being born in the smae situation is madness: if as Britain I conquer Africa early, who knows if the parents of one of my WW1 era-generals is going to be one of the new colonists in my new British East Africa-or if they emigrate to South America, which has become the land of opportunity. I'll go with historical leaders at the start, and maybe events for the first few years where generals were already up-and-coming, but beyond that Historical leaders seem to be a bit odd.

Actually, until you start to get into the 1890s, indeed virtually all of your generals would have been born before the start of the game. Most generals end up being in their 60s by the time they get into high command, meaning that the average general in the mid 1890s would have been alive (albiet a baby) in 1836. By the end game (the Great War), most generals were born in the 1850s, meaning that the player really does not have a lot of time to create drastic changes as stated above to cause these generals to either never have been born, or never to have had allegiance to a particular nation.

Indeed, one can safely assume that any historic general in Victoria's era would be around. We can safely assume they didn't die in childbirth, in an accident crossing the street, or as a low-ranking officer. I what I am saying that in a macro-scale game as Victoria 2 one can justify whatever they want on the micro-scale things (i.e., tracking down each individual at birth). So, to base this as a reason for not including historic generals is not really valid, as one can just as easily say the contrary using exactly the same reasoning.

The reality of their choice is to provide the game with a clean slate of leadership qualities. Whether or not this will work is yet to be seen (what would the American Civil War be like if the Northern Generals were not sub-par and the Southern Generals not so innovative early in the war?), but lets just wait before we pass judgement either way.

In all honesty, I think that historic generals, with randomized statistics (based upon the same system they will have with Victoria 2's generic generals) would probably be the best compromise, filling the needs of both.
 
In all honesty, I think that historic generals, with randomized statistics (based upon the same system they will have with Victoria 2's generic generals) would probably be the best compromise, filling the needs of both.

In what way are they "historical" at this point? And why would the much-vaunted "butterfly effect" leave their career intact, but someone profoundly affect their ability? I agree with everything above this though.
 
In what way are they "historical" at this point? And why would the much-vaunted "butterfly effect" leave their career intact, but someone profoundly affect their ability? I agree with everything above this though.

The name and image will go a far way to please people who want Longstreet or Wolesley. Based upon from what I can guess, Vicky 2 will have general's quality based upon factors such as leadership points, academies, etc., meaning that a player could manufacture their nation to be like Prussia or the CSA and have a lot of 'high quality' leadership (akin to how you could in Eu3).

The use of 'historic' names and images even though you cannot predict their stats are significant draws to the 'general grognard' of the 19th Century.
 
I'm not sure it feels worse to have a Confederate main man called 'Woodrow Beecher Stowe' with Geronimo's portrait that it is to have RE Lee's name and picture but with the stats of a drooling simpleton.
 
I'm not sure it feels worse to have a Confederate main man called 'Woodrow Beecher Stowe' with Geronimo's portrait that it is to have RE Lee's name and picture but with the stats of a drooling simpleton.

The general or the forumite?

Austen.
 
My apologies if this has been answered but I still haven't been able to find out if the AI will pay military maintenance in Vic 2. If someone knows could he/she enlighten me?

Also, will the AI be able to disband troops/ships (other than at new technology points, a la ships for Vic 1)?
Still looking for an answer on this one. If the answer is "we don't know yet" please say so. Gracias
 
will the brigades reinforce in the lack of small arms.i mean when you mobilised you get tens or even hunds of 0 stg brigades so in a lack of small arms should effect how fast reinforce from its normal value
Nobody has answered this question yet? I'm eager to know the answer. This can be very crucial in warfares.
 
I'm a little fuzzy on this.

Is it the old V1 system where there is a dedicated pop that is officers which grows and produces leader points, or, are we employing some of our general population as officers?

I never liked the idea of a dedicated officer pop that reproduces officers.

Might it be better to set a percentage of the military units that should be staffed by clerks and laborers? And if you can't meet that ratio the unit's performance is affected?

My feeling is that leaders should arise from the the total populations and having more educated populations improving the point generation and potential quality.

In fact this should be applied to diplomatic points as well.

Other thing is that there should be more than just military leaders produced.

You could have science leaders, political leaders, diplomatic leaders, etc.

Actually you should just get the leader points and decide how to allocate them.

I hope the leader traits are simplified. And that the number of units a leader can lead without degradation would vary on his skills, abilities and intellect. in fact a skillful leader with few units should get some bonuses.

Late in the day for this but its worth thinking about for the future evolution of the game.
 
That would give human player too much power. You can't just simply transfer elites by your decision. That would be too Vicky-like and against the general idea of this game.

Also the officers are product of POP system. They are logical since it was full time occupation and their percentage in society is just another way to make your country uniqe. How else simulte Prussia and their officer corps without that?
 
I'll agree to disagree on this. It's still a job that requires wages and people are hired to do it.

Where for example there are aristocrats they be the exclusive hires and what you'd see is some interesting effects. Say of there were not enough aristocrats to fill the officer requirements of the unit. This is distinct from the actual leaders.

Your leader points should, depending on your policies, come from the whole of the population in some proportion to a relevant factor such as literacy.

I just feel it's a more rational approach not that it will give any greater advantage.
 
The thing is that this was not the modern world. For many, probably most, nations in this period, whether or not you got to be an officer was not related to any "leadership qualities" or educational considerations - it was based on whether or not you were a "gentleman". And it was, to all intents and purposes, hereditary. Some of the most prominent commanders in the British Army in both 20th century world wars were descended from those who commanded in the wars against Napoleon, around a century earlier.
 
That can be accommodated and in the early years literacy was rare and usually concentrated in the hereditary elite.

But in this time period military academies were in place and, especially in North America, you could rise to be a "Gentile Man" through social mobility.

--

In HoI2 there were national leaders that had an effect. In V1 there were no national leaders, only game events with leaders as national flavor.

I would have hoped in V2 we would see real national leaders driving the decision making process. Leaders with goals, political views and self interest. When leaders have the goal of lining their pocket and the means, you can then understand why authoritarian governments propagate despite their negative aspects.