[Megathread] Warfare Discussion

[Rider_of_Doom]

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.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened to me.


And I also want to add another thing I find highly unbalanced and had to meet today: Generals with multiple offensive/defensive traits. If someone rolls such a dude the army which is commanded by this single individual is invincible. Even if his army would attack with sticks and stones while heavily outnumbered. The Ottoman Empire rolled such a general with multiple high % traits in my last game: 30%+30%+10%. In the end that guy walked around with nearly 70 offense in the beginning of the game and that's just way too high compared to the average between 30-40 including some common minor buff traits if you start as a major power. He had only 80 units but that was enough to clap Austria, Russia and Egypt because none of them rolled an equal general. And unlike EUIV there is no easy way to "reroll" for a better general for some mana since you will get hit with negative opinion which would stack a ton trying to gamble in the general roulette. The game could really profit from adapting a system more similar to HoI IV in that regard: Scale the bonuses down so they are noticable but not as high as "cheating the game" and let us (and the AI) unlock fitting traits so it is possible for everyone to get well specialized generals not only by sheer luck but also over time.

On top there are sometimes also extremely weird frontline combinations and switching. My favourite frontline happens when Russia and the Ottomans fight: It is established from Bessarabia to Kars... going straight through the Black Sea. Didn't knew deep sea warfare was already a thing back then! Why can't there be two fronts? I guess that would make too much sense...

Right now it is just more RNG on the RNG the actual fronts already are. When everything is RNG it may be fun in a vacuum (or in an observer game) but most players absolutely do not enjoy such a experience including myself. RNG is fine to a degree as long as it is partially influenceable. In Victoria 3 everything feels (because there must be some (hidden) logic in the game code) like RNG with no player agency at all and that's just frustrating.

 

[DominusNovus]

This seals it for me. No diversity, no depth, everything the same. Oh well...

So glad someone went and made that video.

 

[Gantolandon]

There seems to be a little problem with AI not knowing when to end the war.

In my game, Two Sicilies tried to annex Parma somewhere in early 1840s. Sardinia-Piedmont didn't really like that, so it decided to help. Two Sicilies got greedy and added Sardinia and Piedmont to their wargoals. They also got Spain to help them.

I looked again in 1851, and it seemed the war is still going on. Two Sicilies annexed Parma, but for some reason, they have no front with either S-P or Spain. The tooltip shows that both would accept the "current peace treaty," but instead, they seem content to stay mobilized and do exactly nothing. Of course, it completely locks them out from any other conflicts, so they may as well not exist anymore.

In the north, France and Prussia seemed to have started the Great War early. After a spat over some German minor, they took some opposing wargoals and for 6 years they are fighting over the Rhine. Right now, France is winning and has +1000 to accepting a peace treaty. Prussia is battered enough to get +5. Theoretically, there is no reason to continue the fight, but they seem determined to carry on.

 

[Rannyman1998]

You guys are lucky im in a never ending war with Prussia because one of the peace conditions lost its requirements (Liberate Hesse requires Hesse to be a Subject) but since Württemburg (an AI) is the war leader Prussia cant surrender and Württemburg cant offer peace since its AI is designed to press ALL demands which it cant because Hesse isnt a puppet anymore.

Meanwhile Prussia is descending into Revolution because the war wont end and they have 35% turmoil in every state.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

They turned Victoria 2 into a mobile crash of clans game.
We are lucky, they could've made it match-3.
And people only asked to make HoIIV frontlines to Victoria era...

 

[SecretiveCody]

They turned Victoria 2 into a mobile crash of clans game.
We are lucky, they could've made it match-3.
And people only asked to make HoIIV frontlines to Victoria era...

I genuinely don't understand why they couldn't have gone with HOI4 frontlines. The new system uses frontlines anyways, they're just AI controlled...

 

[sterrius]

Finally found the AI going from offense to "hold the line"
Fund it interesting because it forced me to actually naval blockade its troops so i could debuff his troops even more to allow a push.

I can see the debuff he is getting by looking at his barracks.

Also with zero point to bring 200 troops to kill 10. Im just learning to take wars slow. Few troops as possible to spend as little as possible.
I try the best i can to nerf the enemy by blocking his trade and make him attack me (So i get the number advantage).

Only after i maximize this i go for the attack. If that is not enough then, finally i will bring more generals to speed up battles and not let him rest and recover morale/numbers.

it does take a different aproach from other pdx games where i wanted the war to last as little as possible.
Just placing this here as a tooltip. While we wait for fix, etc its good to learn and get the best from what we have.

 

[MarkFranz]

They turned Victoria 2 into a mobile crash of clans game.
We are lucky, they could've made it match-3.
And people only asked to make HoIIV frontlines to Victoria era...

Wait, you compared part of Victoria3 to mobile game in your post, and don't get instantly respectfully disagreed? Is it possible to learn such power?

 

[Faeelin]

Okay, just to demonstrate how messed up this game I am in - my troops are twice as effective, but I've spent way more and lost more?

Meanwhile, Robert E. Lee is just vibing, refusing to do anything. He's "busy" with something.

 

[Traslogan]

The warfare is a joke, simple as.


Chile is recommended as a starting nation. If Peru-Bolivia or Argentina takes one single tile of your capital you lose before you can liberate it because of how arcade-y the war support system is.

You can outnumber an enemy 3:1 but RNG dictates your battles will have almost no troops so you send 5 units versus 23 and then watch as you magically lose despite numerical and qualitative superiority on paper.

Let's not forget half the battles are dictated by pure RNG events per-battle.

Naval is honestly enough to say don't buy the game. It's a joke how rarely transported troops get intercepted and of course we can barely see anything because Paradox have decided warfare bad. Had a war as Chile with Britain on my side versus Argentina and Italy. DId Italy get intercepted sending 100,000+ troops to Argentina? Nope. Royal navy has no mechanics to stop them, no interceptions, no blockades, nothing. Lost the war because naval is so useless you could remove it and the game wouldn't change.


I don't know who came up with this but they need to be banned from doing anything related to warfare design on paradox titles.

 

[ringhloth]

You've probably lost more to attrition, because you have more troops. You're spending more on advanced techniques. I don't really see how this in particular demonstrates how broken it is. I would say that there are things to be fixed about the system, but huge armies suffering more attrition than smaller ones is not one of them.

 

[Allan Nonymous]

The warfare is a joke, simple as.


Chile is recommended as a starting nation. If Peru-Bolivia or Argentina takes one single tile of your capital you lose before you can liberate it because of how arcade-y the war support system is.

You can outnumber an enemy 3:1 but RNG dictates your battles will have almost no troops so you send 5 units versus 23 and then watch as you magically lose despite numerical and qualitative superiority on paper.

Let's not forget half the battles are dictated by pure RNG events per-battle.


I don't know who came up with this but they need to be banned from doing anything related to warfare design on paradox titles.

Probably the same people who came up with the "let's automate borders" in Stellaris.

 

[Kyoumen]

Also, garrison troops don't go on the offensive. They could have much better (or better-suited fo the terain) general than you as well.

That being said, I do agree there's too much opacity in the combat system in terms of causes and effects, although the actual result of war being risky even when you seemingly have all the cards is actually good imo.

 

[Traslogan]

The warfare system is just simply terrible. There's no excusing it. And I know exactly what will happen, they'll have the balls to fix it for $30, or $60-$90 across multiple expansions that don't work together and so all the systems are independent.

 

[Kyoumen]

The warfare system is just simply terrible. There's no excusing it. And I know exactly what will happen, they'll have the balls to fix it for $30, or $60-$90 across multiple expansions that don't work together and so all the systems are independent.

Paradox literally never has put a core system like "how combat works" in a dlc, a fact which you are well aware of.

 

[Traslogan]

Paradox literally never has put a core system like "how combat works" in a dlc, a fact which you are well aware of.

So it's just going to remain broken and terrible then. Another reason to tell people to avoid the game.

You get more combat depth when you place your first monkey in Bloons Tower Defense.

 

[Faeelin]

And of course, ultimately this battle happens and ends instantly. Why? Who can say!

 

[Faeelin]

You've probably lost more to attrition, because you have more troops. You're spending more on advanced techniques. I don't really see how this in particular demonstrates how broken it is. I would say that there are things to be fixed about the system, but huge armies suffering more attrition than smaller ones is not one of them.

How can I tell that I've lost more to attrition? And how do I unlock Lee? Where is he?

 

[DukeLeto42]

You've spent a lot of money on that war. That's because you have a large, advanced military that you need to upkeep when you mobilize it. Your laws significantly impact the cost of mobilization. As for your losses, the combat width system (which is extremely opaque, and that is a real point against it) mean assaults happen almost exclusively on the back foot. The outcome may never have been in question, but the cost to you was.

How can I tell that I've lost more to attrition? And how do I unlock Lee? Where is he?

Lee's having fun exploring the continent, isn't he?

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

Probably the same people who came up with the "let's automate borders" in Stellaris.

At least automatic sector borders is a relatively minor inconvenience compared to armies teleporting across the world