Victoria 3 | Monthly Update #11 | May

[Darkath]

These two screen shots really illustrate the limits of the current war system.

If the only actions the player can take in a war is decide where to send generals and wether to advance or defend, then having a single or a couple "front" along a 2000km border doesn't make any sense and the player agency will be very small in this kind of 1v1 wars.


The second screenshot show a much smaller (potential) conflict in gujarat, where 5 fronts are openened because of the presence of many minors/OPM vassals in india, what happen ? if the small gujarati state doesnt have enough generals and troops to send on each of these front ?

 

[Clophiroth]

What state though, capital state? Then Madrid lies in Toledo state I suppose?

And what if I as Germany fight Britain over Cape town, then the front in South Africa is called Berlin - London?

States in the theatre in the war. I really doubt the Brasilian capital is in Mato Grosso.

 

[Spartakus]

The Hannover flag uses the wrong horse. The Hannoverian version of the Saxon Steed has a downward tail. the upward tail is used for Westphalia.

 

[The Goldfinch]

States in the theatre in the war. I really doubt the Brasilian capital is in Mato Grosso.

Random two states? +What do you mean by theater of war?

 

[hazard151]

I'd like to see the option for having fronts dynamically renaming themselves as they advance and retreat across state lines. It might also work out to have fronts instead focus on Strategic Regions instead of national borders, but that offers a lot of weird edge cases.

The second screenshot show a much smaller (potential) conflict in gujarat, where 5 fronts are openened because of the presence of many minors/OPM vassals in india, what happen ? if the small gujarati state doesnt have enough generals and troops to send on each of these front ?

IIRC, this matters most when you try to advance a front, as defensive actions can draw troops and generals from garrisons in the state, who respond to enemy offensive actions.

 

[Mounir Al-Fateh]

These all look great.

 

[Darkath]

I'd like to see the option for having fronts dynamically renaming themselves as they advance and retreat across state lines. It might also work out to have fronts instead focus on Strategic Regions instead of national borders, but that offers a lot of weird edge cases.



IIRC, this matters most when you try to advance a front, as defensive actions can draw troops and generals from garrisons in the state, who respond to enemy offensive actions.

That really seem like an overly complex system to automate something that could be more easily resolved with a dynamic system where the number of fronts opened is relative to the geography rather than the number of independant states on the border (which is a completely thing number which has nothing to do with the war should progress, although i reckon the latter is probably much easier to design/code rather than a dynamic system)

 

[SupremTurtle]

Having the Catholic Church be against Multiculturalism is confusing to me. Are the Hungarian, Croatian, Slovenian, etc. priests all self-loathing and want to remain second class citizens? That seems nonsensical. It feels more like it’s just being represented as a generic “conservative” bloc, rather than where pops would actually place their interests.

You're right, the minorities of the population would not want to remain second class citizens. However, since they are discriminated population, they are not part of the "Catholic Church" interest group of Austria and is more interested in secceding the country to become first class citizens in their own nations rather than a multicultural Danubian federation.

 

[Hawke06]

This flag painting thing on the map looks really bad, come on people, change it to something normal, lighter shade of country color or something just not that.

 

[jurrz12]

You're right, the minorities of the population would not want to remain second class citizens. However, since they are discriminated population, they are not part of the "Catholic Church" interest group of Austria and is more interested in secceding the country to become first class citizens in their own nations rather than a multicultural Danubian federation.

I was under the impression that discriminated pops could still join interest groups, they just had a malus to political strength.

In any case, while 19th century Austria is definitely not my area of expertise, having the Catholic Church be one of the main opponents of including other (Catholic) ethnicities in government feels very off.

 

[SupremTurtle]

I was under the impression that discriminated pops could still join interest groups, they just had a malus to political strength.

In any case, while 19th century Austria is definitely not my area of expertise, having the Catholic Church be one of the main opponents of including other (Catholic) ethnicities in government feels very off.

The “Catholic Church”, according to game logic, is not the Catholic Church headed by the pope. It is the “Austrian Catholic Church”, a national church headed by the Germans priests in Vienna. The German archbishop in Vienna would naturally be unwilling to share power with the minority, even if they are priests, which is why they oppose multiculturalism.

In addition, the law multiculturalism means that literally every culture will not be discriminated against, regardless of heritage and trait (compared to the law “racial segregation”, where cultures with different heritage are discriminated). If you really think the Catholic Church (but also Europeans in general) in the 19th century would support citizenship for any one who is not white, think again.

 

[Avock7]

The “Catholic Church”, according to game logic, is not the Catholic Church headed by the pope. It is the “Austrian Catholic Church”, a national church headed by the Germans priests in Vienna. The German archbishop in Vienna would naturally be unwilling to share power with the minority, even if they are priests, which is why they oppose multiculturalism.

In addition, the law multiculturalism means that literally every culture will not be discriminated against, regardless of heritage and trait (compared to the law “racial segregation”, where cultures with different heritage are discriminated). If you really think the Catholic Church (but also Europeans in general) in the 19th century would support citizenship for any one who is not white, think again.

With all due respect, I think you need to take your own advice. Racism was certainly very common then, and the Catholic church is not entirely immune to this, but in general it is one of the least racist institutions of the time period. I mean, it's the Catholic church- Catholic as in universal, as in of all nations, as in of all cultures. Also remember that supporting it in this sense isn't passive; not every ig is supporting the law. In order for this to make sense, you have to argue that the Catholic church is a particularly racist institution.

Which is the opposite of what should be the case -for the Catholic church in particular, but also for Devout ig's in general. They should be the most culturally accommodating of ig if we're erecting vic 3 levels of separation between culture and religion. You'd think the Church in Austria would be more inclined to let Slavic (or even theorcatical black or asian catholics) have more sway then German or Austrain protestants