IGN preview

[King]

I think the citation above clearly implies that player's control of warfare will be more indirect. Is this right Paradox? Will you change the way warfare is simulated in your games? I'm asking this as the first article on Magna Mundi implies something similar. It also implies that there are options for the player to decide what he wants to keep control over. So more indirect control over warfare might be an optional thing, right?

No what it means is that you don't have Total War style tactical battles. You send the troops into a province and they fight, not too different from our other games.

 

[King]

Also just to clarify a bit, you use small arms to raise armies, these armies then consume small arms to stay fighting. Meaning you have less small arms available for troop building meaning that until your arms industry expands your troop riasing potential decreases as your army gets bigger.

 

[King]

It seems parliament is not just limited to represent which party will be in charge of government once each 4/5 years... In fact I would bet more for decisions Rome or In Nomine-style rather than events... they'd have broad effects, and would be available depending on majorities and your behaviour.

Very interesting if something like a 'decision system related to parliamentary majorities' is adopted. And a senate blocking some decisions... politics won't be a cakewalk, I'm assuming.

In Victoria you had events that changed POP issues and ideology and you have the same in Victoria 2. So your POPs are not 100% percent predictable there is always an element of uncertentanty when it comes to your people.

 

[King]

At least it's been stated in a dev diary (#7 I think) that factories have a small upkeep cost in cement.

yes