Naval Combat is so meaningless in this game that I usually forget to mention it, to be completely honest. Which is again disappointing as the Developer Diaries seemed very promising.
- 6
- 1
[Megathread] Warfare Discussion
- Thread starter gekp78
- Start date
-
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.
Something I would agree wholeheartedly with.
As much as we hear people cry out about hating microing armies, an updated vic2 system with modern QOL features would have been a whole lot better than what we've got.
- 19
I don't like to be a "conspiracy theorist" but a lot of the micro-hate seems to have been astroturfed; I think there's a considerable difference between disliking poorly optimized and clunky micro and wanting warfare to be an automated process.
- 17
- 2
Very true, I just worry that now it's too late. Plenty of people said this months and months ago and were ignored and in some cases rather viciously insulted. Paradox listened to the wrong crowd.
- 16
- 1
I'm not saying that moving troops in vic2 is a problem. I saying that the people don't like it, there much more things to do.
- 2
I play a lot of multiplayer EU4 and late game with 1m men on each side is actually a ton of fun, and unlike what these micro-haters seem to keep believing, it isn't at all, not ever, about "pile everyone into the same battle in a gigadoomstack" Nor is it always, or even frequently, about who has the larger army. Theres a lot of interesting strategy at play... and late game vic2 combat has even more strategy when you consider the shape of provinces and being able to encircle armies.
- 4
- 1
The Jomini-Clausewitz system (whatever it's actually called) used by Imperator, Crusader Kings 3, and Victoria 3 is great. As a mod developer it's much easier to work with and has a lot of accessibility in general - however poor or rushed scripting can be catastrophic.
- 1
What people don't like it?
The problem with saying "People don't like X" is that you need genuine evidence to back that up. If you said "I don't like it" then I believe you and you likely have something of value to say but you can't pretend like you have your thumb on the pulse of what "The People" truly want.
- 3
- 1
That’s my feelings too - great idea, bad execution.
to make it a great execution I feel like the player needs something to do - some input or levers they can pull to make them feel involved in the war so they can actually do something beyond “attack!”or “defend!”
the AI needs work to carry out your instructions reasonably competently. Personally I love the thought of my instructions being potentially misinterpreted by a general like a limited attack with a simple objective turns into a full on assault from a general who’s got aggressive traits even if this might frustrate others. The problem is the AI isn’t carrying out anything competently right now.
fronts needs working when there’s multiple.
AI needs to understand what a limited war is
- 1
- 1
Agree fully. If they stick to this system it needs some SERIOUS reworks. I still would prefer a mixed system like I:R and HOI4, though.
- 3
As Germany I wanted Alsace Lorraine. France being giga-cracked in this patch was a behemoth that would be super difficult to beat. Denmark was my puppet and also joined the war, even though I had all of Jutland so he had like 4 brigades.
So I invade, and thankfully do well enough to have occupied the entirity of Alsace Lorraine. Great... just go defensive now...
Except Denmark didn't get the notification, so decided to attack with his 4 brigades into the 270 defending Frenchmen.
I'll let you guess how that went.
What happens when you lose an offensive battle when you are fighting from occupied territory? You lose that occupied territory! So France beats 4000 silly little Danes, and the might of Germany has to fall back to Baden because of it.
What a joke.
- 11
- 4
- 2
We said this since I:R, yet people pre ordered CK3 and Vic3 making the same posts as you did.
People should stop pre-ordering based on previous games from 10y ago like EU4/CK2/Vic2.
The last 3 years PDX has very bad track record and it won't be any different to the next title which going to be EU5. And if we want better games from PDX we need as customers to show it by stop buying sub par products expecting that they will be fixed some time in the future. Sorry but 2020s PDX is not the same company it was back in 2010s.
- 16
- 4
- 2
The simple option would have been to use a variant of the HoI4 front and army systems; the player draws a general plan and the army has to carry it out (so manual unit movement wouldn't be possible).
- 3
That don't work. states in Vic3 are bigger compared to Hoi4. Caps the AI movement.
Smaller states, add more micro management in resources.
Maybe a two layer map?
- 1
The problem is lack of competition to scratch the same itch.
if there was alternatives paradox would be forced to raise their game instead of the ck3 getting royal court as its only expo, and hoi4 continuing to get a parade of national focus trees which are “click button, wait, get buff / annex thing, click button, repeat”
- 6
- 1
I'm still on board with the overall direction of warfare in this game, as the agency we've lost at the tactical level has been made up for in the economic gameplay which is miles better than what Vicky 2 offered. Additionally, much of the micro of armies from other Paradox games has been removed, like patrolling your stacks across multiple theaters to make sure the enemy doesn't pounce on them out of nowhere, or needing to go deal with the enemy's units that have decided to go siege your holdings in Siberia 5000 miles away, so that's good.
That said, there's a ton of pain points with warfare as it exists right now. I don't think any of these are fatal and most could be fixed with a few tweaks, but some of these really need to be high-priority fixes because they're killing an otherwise pretty fun game.
It should also be noted, though, that the decision to make mods *not* disable achievements will probably end up being extremely helpful. In other PDS games we either have to rely on the devs implementing the correct changes in a reasonable timeframe (which can obviously be very inconsistent), or otherwise we have to play without achievements entirely, which is a huge part of the game if you like having goals. Vic 3 doesn't have that problem, and I've already changed some defines on war enthusiasm to be less obnoxious. We'll have to wait for the devs to fix some more fundamental issues like how frontlines merge, but otherwise we're no longer bound by Paradox's decisions on balancing, which is a huge, HUGE positive in my eyes.
That said, there's a ton of pain points with warfare as it exists right now. I don't think any of these are fatal and most could be fixed with a few tweaks, but some of these really need to be high-priority fixes because they're killing an otherwise pretty fun game.
- The amount of troops engaging in a battle, and the rate of frontline advances in general, both need to be looked at. If I as the USA have 150 units to Mexico's 10, and the frontline is thousands of miles long, I should not be losing battles over and over because my general refuses to send more than 5 battalions into combat at a time, in battles that end up lasting over a month. What the hell are the rest of my guys doing???
- Fronts merging or new fronts opening are both really janky. Sometimes it means the general gets deassigned from the front and your troops teleport home. Other times it can mean all the enemy troops are in a tiny pocket and the main front proceeds 100x faster.
- A general dying of old age during a campaign should not mean all their troops teleport home, especially when there's penalties for retiring generals.
- Being in one war should not lock you out of starting other wars. The EU4 devs realized that getting locked out of declaring war from regencies is really, really not fun and they eventually effectively removed it. I my first Vic 3 game I exceeded the infamy cap as the USA which resulted in Austria(?) declaring war on me. They ended up being completely irrelevant since their army was smaller than mine and they couldn't even make it to the Western hemisphere since my navy was so big, but they still wrecked my plans because they locked me out from declaring war on other nations. I waited for years but they never wanted to even make a white peace since their gold reserves were high, and the passive war enthusiasm loss doesn't ever go negative. I tried invading them, but my dumb generals tried doing D-Day with only 5 battalions of their 100+ battalion force. I was effectively completely paralyzed in the most stupid way possible.
- Being forced to put all your wargoals before the war breaks out is completely ahistorical and ridiculous. It's even worse when the enemy surrenders without a fight, because you get the infamy gain up-front, and are only partially refunded when the enemy gives up.
- There should be a way to force a war, i.e. to not let the enemy "surrender" without giving up ALL of the wargoals instead of just the first one. The Mexican Cession is taking me decades because Mexico keeps surrendering one state per cycle and getting a 5-year truce every time.
It should also be noted, though, that the decision to make mods *not* disable achievements will probably end up being extremely helpful. In other PDS games we either have to rely on the devs implementing the correct changes in a reasonable timeframe (which can obviously be very inconsistent), or otherwise we have to play without achievements entirely, which is a huge part of the game if you like having goals. Vic 3 doesn't have that problem, and I've already changed some defines on war enthusiasm to be less obnoxious. We'll have to wait for the devs to fix some more fundamental issues like how frontlines merge, but otherwise we're no longer bound by Paradox's decisions on balancing, which is a huge, HUGE positive in my eyes.
Last edited:
- 12
- 4
- 2
- 1
- 1
Mexican Cession is completely broken. Very frustrating for USA playthroughs.
This seals it for me. No diversity, no depth, everything the same. Oh well...
- 2
- 1
- 1
to be fair i tried naval interdiction on a opponent and the lack of small arms + artilhery to the enemy gives the opponent a -50% penalty for lack of weapons. So at least a good interdiction do impact the land war.
Problem is that after they finish killing the convoys they will only stay there for a month and somehow go back to port and the trade will resume like nothing happened. So you need to keep an eye out to restart the mission.
- 3
I'm shocked! who could have foreseen! no one even suspected such a outcome!
- 6
- 5