I would say I want something closer to the I:R system with a frontline mechanic.
- 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.
You can forget about manual control of brigades. I'd be interested to hear what you have in mind, besides that.
To me, 3 priorities are
1) better front system and front behaviour
2) more battles happening at the same time, depending on front size
3) being able to assign soldiers to fronts
To me, 3 priorities are
1) better front system and front behaviour
2) more battles happening at the same time, depending on front size
3) being able to assign soldiers to fronts
- 4
- 1
Not the mechanic of the warsystem itself but i just noticed that there is no way for parties to join, once a war has begun. The Americans joining in later, als always, won't be a thing here.
- 2
There are so many things the system models poorly. Like diplo plays. If one side backs down, you can only take the main wargoal. You can't refuse and push forward anyways with side goals or whatever!
It is fine I guess. Not like this series of events kicked off the most brutal conflict in history up to that point or anything
- 2
- 1
Well, pretty much every person that was opposed to new system understood perfectly well, that AI falling over itself and making your playthrough easier than it should be, is infinity more acceptable then AI loosing you wars that you have spent a tone of time carefully setting up to be easy win.
The fact that PI can't get such systems right, was also not lost, looking at HOI4, where AI still can't use tanks as tanks.
So the technical execution risk has materialized. Let's see if "war is too boring" risk materialize as well.
The fact that PI can't get such systems right, was also not lost, looking at HOI4, where AI still can't use tanks as tanks.
So the technical execution risk has materialized. Let's see if "war is too boring" risk materialize as well.
- 1
Man I literally can't play HOi4 anymore. The fact that after 6 years that the ai are incapable of fighting anything even close to resembling WW2 is quite maddening. I am not expecting perfection but like you said, can't even use tanks properly...
- 1
My fear with the war system "fix" is that I will have to pay $30 for it with a DLC. I don't mind change with subsequent releases in a series, for instance HOI3, having to structure your armies was tedious, the change in HOI4 was refreshing. This change however is not what I was looking for.
Paradox has moved away in recent years from putting baseline mechanics in DLCs. There will be DLC in the future, no doubt, but any fixes to warfare will be free, I can guarantee that.
- 6
- 1
The problem is not to please or not 38% or 62% of the community, but to please at least 90% of it, which is the aim of any ambitious great PDX game like, what a surprise, Victoria 2.
If the devs cannot equal, and by far, the same rate, there is indeed a big problem on the table, and it will have to be dealt with.
- 1
No amount of tinkering will fix something that is fundamentally broken. Paradox has even admitted that the war system was the hardest to implement; it's only going to get harder. I see a lot of comments of people saying something along the lines of "the foundation is there"...it isn't. The foundation is cracked to its core, the entire thing needs to be gutted and re-poured. Why Wiz and the Vic3 development team is doubling-down on this system is beyond me but simply "balancing" and "exposing more data" doesn't address the obvious flaws in the system--flaws that can only be properly addressed by altering the core functions of the system.
- 7
- 2
Since they have allowed achievements without ironman and mods now, (I have my own theories on why they did this), I got to thinking how difficult would it be to just mod in something similar to the HoI frontline system with player control over battalions assigned to the front? This is all based roughly on the same engine, correct? Any modders out there with this knowledge? I'm not a modder myself, but I have a passing ability to work with code, and the hatred I have for the warfare in this game is enough to fuel me to learn what I need to do this.
- 1
This is quickly turning into the "mana" controversy from I:R all over again, even has the lack of flavor between nations that should have huge differences and the doubling down on it. By the time they got that fixed the game was dead in the water. I don't want that to happen here, but its strikingly similar.
- 1
- 1
I don't think this is possible because units currently are abstractly tied to HQs, unless you mod in thousands of HQs..?
My two cents, having now actually done some wars:
- I really like the ideas behind this system. I like telling my generals to handle something but it's not totally in my control. I like having to focus on giving them the tools to do the job but not being able to have stunning military upsets in every battle because I'm not an AI. It's almost the exact opposite of what V2 had, where the capitalists did their own thing, now it's the generals (I don't want to expand this discussion to that, just noting that the roles are flipped). I also love how this puts the focus on the truly revolutionary parts of this time period: a transformation of societal structure not matched since the invention of the farm.
- People saying "just use HoI4" fail to appreciate that
- HoI4 only offers you a false choice: micro, or play worse. This is not a choice. It's only a question of how much energy you, the player have.
- HoI4 cannot model early wars anyway. HoI4 only does late game wars, when the massive stacks are split into more distributed groups. The number of people offering this up as a no-brainer solution is reminiscent to me of the people who said political parties as IG alliances were a no-brainer solution...only for that not to be as good as they were imagining because of how many situations could not be captured by it. In other words, it's a system that works really well for the time period it was designed for and not for others, like, say, the Victorian era.
- That all being said, I am struggling to use or understand this war system right now.
- For example:
- When I am considering starting a play, the game tells me how many divisions they have but not their strength, which is bizarre in a game that explicitly accounts for that with army projection.
- If I lose a battle, the game does a terrible job of telling me what factors led to that defeat, which means I don't know what I can do about it.
- The interactions between the navy and army, as much as I like them in theory, are very clunky: I cannot prepare a naval invasion until the war actually starts, it's almost impossible to tell which general will be available to which fleet, you cannot move commanders between headquarters, generals seem to sometimes leave the fronts they just landed to set up, etc.
- The way you have to cycle generals through orders to keep their morale up is specifically contradictory to the way I don't want to have to handle them. I can't even see their morale that easily, the game doesn't tell you what it is very clearly, and anyway the generals should be able to take care of that themselves.
- The way fronts are generated is obviously weird, which was noted long ago. It should be broken up naturally be environmental features.
- What this all means is that although the system is clearly set up to try and have you plan for success in the years leading up to a war, there's no way for you to gauge when you've done that enough. Not even roughly, which I would understand if you were supposed to have imperfect information but even the actual nations in this time period had some understanding of who had what capabilities; there was the historical dreadnought race specifically because the UK unveiled that type of ship and everyone else puckered in response.
- For example:
- 6
- 5
- 1
I've been thinking about it for a while now and I've come to this:
I still think the general idea of the system is great and desperately needed. Eliminate movement micro that suggests tactical depth where there is none, move towards a system where fronts matter, and turn warfare into a matter of economics and shaping the military as a national institution.
I would concede this: if we're supposed to consider warfare on the level of our nation rather than on the micro-level, we need more options to actually define the nature of our military on that level.
I've explained my ideas in more detail in this thread, but will try to sum them up here.
I think what we need is: HoI4, but you only get a single division template, you don't get any units on the ground moving, and you only get the automatically executed battle plan. But have the equipment provision, have the army organization, and have the staff of generals.
Basically, let me define the nature of the military as a whole; let me define the nature of a particular army; let me broadly define what it does.
Defining the military as a whole: More production methods for armies, including different weapon types, rather than just having those technologies unlock better production in weapon factories. Give us supply as an extension of economics. A system for building a stockpile of equipment (separate from the stockpile-less market) that consumes trade goods and produces the stockpile, and then having to use it to provide for the troops.
A law/institution representing Army Doctrine. Maybe Military Academies, improving the quality of your generals.
Defining the particular army: let us chose which units to assign - whether to make a army with only conscripts, or one with all the barracks using one particular production method; and also whether to fill the capacity the general has or take less than it. Then have Field Marshals leading multiple generals - this would actually reduce micro further, because right now, you still might have to assign a dozen generals to this front or that front rather than being able to say "three armies under that Field Marshal to that one". Introduce veterancy, where armies that have been fighting gain experience, becoming more capable as they fight wars, and lose experience over time when at peace.
Defining what it does: maybe eliminate fronts entirely, apart from visually. Just give us the strategic region (might have to readjust the sizes) and we assign an army, telling it to either attack or defend.
Then add onto that by integrating it with the other systems. During an uprising, one of your well equipped armies veteran could defect along with its general.
To facilitate that, Battalions would probably needed to be somewhat separated from being a purely localized production though.
I still think the general idea of the system is great and desperately needed. Eliminate movement micro that suggests tactical depth where there is none, move towards a system where fronts matter, and turn warfare into a matter of economics and shaping the military as a national institution.
I would concede this: if we're supposed to consider warfare on the level of our nation rather than on the micro-level, we need more options to actually define the nature of our military on that level.
I've explained my ideas in more detail in this thread, but will try to sum them up here.
I think what we need is: HoI4, but you only get a single division template, you don't get any units on the ground moving, and you only get the automatically executed battle plan. But have the equipment provision, have the army organization, and have the staff of generals.
Basically, let me define the nature of the military as a whole; let me define the nature of a particular army; let me broadly define what it does.
Defining the military as a whole: More production methods for armies, including different weapon types, rather than just having those technologies unlock better production in weapon factories. Give us supply as an extension of economics. A system for building a stockpile of equipment (separate from the stockpile-less market) that consumes trade goods and produces the stockpile, and then having to use it to provide for the troops.
A law/institution representing Army Doctrine. Maybe Military Academies, improving the quality of your generals.
Defining the particular army: let us chose which units to assign - whether to make a army with only conscripts, or one with all the barracks using one particular production method; and also whether to fill the capacity the general has or take less than it. Then have Field Marshals leading multiple generals - this would actually reduce micro further, because right now, you still might have to assign a dozen generals to this front or that front rather than being able to say "three armies under that Field Marshal to that one". Introduce veterancy, where armies that have been fighting gain experience, becoming more capable as they fight wars, and lose experience over time when at peace.
Defining what it does: maybe eliminate fronts entirely, apart from visually. Just give us the strategic region (might have to readjust the sizes) and we assign an army, telling it to either attack or defend.
Then add onto that by integrating it with the other systems. During an uprising, one of your well equipped armies veteran could defect along with its general.
To facilitate that, Battalions would probably needed to be somewhat separated from being a purely localized production though.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
- 1
- 1
I have an Indian territory game where Mexico and US got stuck in a 30 year long 0-0 war where they have both just stopped assigning generals to fronts for the last 10 years. So it has essentially ruined this playthrough as I am at 100% devistation and no way out.
How many of the 62% do you think would have changed their positive review to a negative one, were the standard PDX model of warfare been used for Vicky 3 instead of what we have? I would argue less than 5% of them, though that number is really just picked out of a hat, I do not think it would be far from the truth.
How many of the 38% would change from negative to positive? Undoubtedly, absolutely, and objectively more than that.
Having the standard PDX model of warfare seen in Vicky 2 and EU4 would undoubtedly have annoyed fewer of the 62% than the new system has annoyed the 38%.
- 6
And this is where you lost me, because I have thought long and hard about this, tried to see the positives of the concept, tried to reconcile it as I really dislike being so critical, and I am 100% convinced that it is the concept that is rotten, and not just bad implementation of a "great" system.
This warfare system, unless ripped up by the roots, will never be good.
- 10
- 1
As the title suggests, I'm not going to defend the war system in this game, at least as currently implemented, because, to be frank and utterly blunt, it's shit. However, I'm still (mostly) on @Wizzington 's side. I think Wiz's vision for Vicky 3 can work, but the game currently needs a lot of work for that to happen.
I would like for this thread to be a launching off point for a discussion that has the chance to heal the rift between those who like the current system and those who don't. I invite @Lord Lambert to this discussion (we've actually talked about this sort of thing in the comments section of his YouTube Videos on Vicky 3; Hi, Lamb Chop, it's me, Piece of Schmidt Gamer! Notice me!)
Let me stake my position here:
I don't think the main problem with the War System is necessarily the War System itself. The main problem is that there is still a lack of things to do outside of war in a consistent manner while your country is at war. Ignoring the various bugs and balance issues that force you to focus on war (because I'm confident those will be fixed in time), there really isn't anything in Politics and Economics to keep your attention tied there as much as the traditional war system kept you tied to it.
With the traditional war system you built armies, you moved armies around, you manually engaged enemy armies in battle. You took losses, you had triumphs against all odds. Gentlemen, the War Micros got at least one thing right: War is Fun. But what they got wrong is that it's not the only source of fun to be had, at least in theory. There are alternative sources of fun to be had. The problem is the game, as currently structured, does not really offer that alternative source of fun. It offers a hint of it, it whispers it into the ears for those willing to listen: Politics. I want to pass laws large and small that affect the daily lives of my Pops. I want to pass a law forbidding my Pops from having sexual intercourse with an alligator! Is that weird? Hell yeah! But it's fun! In the US want to engage with Congress to pass these laws. Perhaps even have every member of Congress be its own distinct character that could rise and become president! I want regular canings taking place in the Halls of Congress! I want to see the President get shot by an assassin only to tackle the assassin to the ground and then get back up on stage and finish their speech! I want each individual US state to be a playable faction with their own legislatures and pass their own state laws! I want a judicial system! I want the United States of America be the Victoria 3 answer to the Holy Roman Empire of Europa Universalis 4! HELL YEAH!
At the very least I think Paradox should take a leaf out of Democracy 4's book and implement some (or hell, all) of their ideas! Make Victoria 3 the Victorian Era answer to Democracy 4! MAKE POLITICS GREAT AGAIN! YOU'LL BE SO ENAMORED WITH POLITICS THAT YOU WON'T HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT WAR!
I would like for this thread to be a launching off point for a discussion that has the chance to heal the rift between those who like the current system and those who don't. I invite @Lord Lambert to this discussion (we've actually talked about this sort of thing in the comments section of his YouTube Videos on Vicky 3; Hi, Lamb Chop, it's me, Piece of Schmidt Gamer! Notice me!)
Let me stake my position here:
I don't think the main problem with the War System is necessarily the War System itself. The main problem is that there is still a lack of things to do outside of war in a consistent manner while your country is at war. Ignoring the various bugs and balance issues that force you to focus on war (because I'm confident those will be fixed in time), there really isn't anything in Politics and Economics to keep your attention tied there as much as the traditional war system kept you tied to it.
With the traditional war system you built armies, you moved armies around, you manually engaged enemy armies in battle. You took losses, you had triumphs against all odds. Gentlemen, the War Micros got at least one thing right: War is Fun. But what they got wrong is that it's not the only source of fun to be had, at least in theory. There are alternative sources of fun to be had. The problem is the game, as currently structured, does not really offer that alternative source of fun. It offers a hint of it, it whispers it into the ears for those willing to listen: Politics. I want to pass laws large and small that affect the daily lives of my Pops. I want to pass a law forbidding my Pops from having sexual intercourse with an alligator! Is that weird? Hell yeah! But it's fun! In the US want to engage with Congress to pass these laws. Perhaps even have every member of Congress be its own distinct character that could rise and become president! I want regular canings taking place in the Halls of Congress! I want to see the President get shot by an assassin only to tackle the assassin to the ground and then get back up on stage and finish their speech! I want each individual US state to be a playable faction with their own legislatures and pass their own state laws! I want a judicial system! I want the United States of America be the Victoria 3 answer to the Holy Roman Empire of Europa Universalis 4! HELL YEAH!
At the very least I think Paradox should take a leaf out of Democracy 4's book and implement some (or hell, all) of their ideas! Make Victoria 3 the Victorian Era answer to Democracy 4! MAKE POLITICS GREAT AGAIN! YOU'LL BE SO ENAMORED WITH POLITICS THAT YOU WON'T HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT WAR!
- 5
- 4
- 3
- 3
I agree with this and see myself voicing a similar opinion. Despite my love for micromanagement and general avoidance to let the AI handle anything the idea of a warfare system that is executed by the AI fascinates me and still does. I think it adds an element to one of the main parts of the game that also needs work diplomacy. If I'm taking on a peer opponents on multiple fronts and I'm vastly outnumbered, it may force me to capitulate to x demand or backdown- which I suspect was the goal. That is something I would probably never consider in system closer to HOI4, EU4, or VIC2. However, no agency or way to interact with warfare at all doesn't work. In the end it's supposed to be a strategy game and there is no way to plan or react to any warfare situation at all as the current system is. Additionally, I'd add they need to change how changing fronts work and add more time to get to fronts when it's on the other side of the globe. I hate the term immersion breaking but that's what it is. Definitely need more information on the supply or attrition modifiers are at x front and the ability to form multiple fronts or at the very least if a front splits it doesn't leave it unmanned and now I'm scrambling to send my boys where they had previously been a week before.
I think you hit the nail on the head here:
The politics in this game is to me the biggest let down, it's nearly as bad as Stellaris's political system which I'd argue doesn't really exist. For a game that was touted to focus on politics I feel there really isn't any interaction with it other than forcing laws through, occasionally forced to stop trying to pass a law and the single instance where I was forced to pass a law to avoid a revolution. Even in a system where you allow some sort of voting it still feels empty. Nothing to force me to put the winning party in power other than some slight legitimacy issues (though this might have improved?) but it still feels empty. Whatever party has the most clout seems to stay in power forever with little change no matter how the player attempts to influence the nation's politics. There is nearly no reactionary push against any liberal reforms the longer the game goes and the larger the voting constituency is. I have yet to see any of the more conservative groups make any strong pushback. Maybe I'm playing it wrong, but the games I've played where I've passed some sort of voting law beyond land voting it ends up as some liberal democracy, I'd like some variation rather than being pushed towards liberal reforms every game with zero pushback, it just doesn't seem fun or engaging to me.
The latest news has put more emphasis on the diplomatic game which I see as the main focus of the game aside from the economy, and it seems they plan on giving more diplomatic options which I'm ecstatic for. With it being more fleshed out a long with some QoL tweaks to the diplomatic play system such as give the player more information as to who will join what side and why, give the player the ability to gain come concessions when not a primary participant and over all better AI management when it comes to whether it chooses to get involved at all. It's far too easy to get a one or more GP involved in some far-flung conflict around the globe.
I'm still optimistic to the dev's vision and I'm genuinely having fun with the game but there is some work that needs to be done and I believe the game can be improved upon and be more polished.
I think you hit the nail on the head here:
The politics in this game is to me the biggest let down, it's nearly as bad as Stellaris's political system which I'd argue doesn't really exist. For a game that was touted to focus on politics I feel there really isn't any interaction with it other than forcing laws through, occasionally forced to stop trying to pass a law and the single instance where I was forced to pass a law to avoid a revolution. Even in a system where you allow some sort of voting it still feels empty. Nothing to force me to put the winning party in power other than some slight legitimacy issues (though this might have improved?) but it still feels empty. Whatever party has the most clout seems to stay in power forever with little change no matter how the player attempts to influence the nation's politics. There is nearly no reactionary push against any liberal reforms the longer the game goes and the larger the voting constituency is. I have yet to see any of the more conservative groups make any strong pushback. Maybe I'm playing it wrong, but the games I've played where I've passed some sort of voting law beyond land voting it ends up as some liberal democracy, I'd like some variation rather than being pushed towards liberal reforms every game with zero pushback, it just doesn't seem fun or engaging to me.
The latest news has put more emphasis on the diplomatic game which I see as the main focus of the game aside from the economy, and it seems they plan on giving more diplomatic options which I'm ecstatic for. With it being more fleshed out a long with some QoL tweaks to the diplomatic play system such as give the player more information as to who will join what side and why, give the player the ability to gain come concessions when not a primary participant and over all better AI management when it comes to whether it chooses to get involved at all. It's far too easy to get a one or more GP involved in some far-flung conflict around the globe.
I'm still optimistic to the dev's vision and I'm genuinely having fun with the game but there is some work that needs to be done and I believe the game can be improved upon and be more polished.
Last edited:
- 5
- 3