That I think is unlikely to be in the game, since it would be getting to close to the kind of micro they seem to be trying to avoid.
- 1
Victoria 3 | Monthly Update #6 | December
- Thread starter commissar roach
- 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.
Well, you could start with talking about things that are actually in the game and in the update.
- 8
- 5
Correct, it indeed seems unlikely and that is why many players including me keep posting about it.
I, for instance, generally appreciate new system (certainly better than vic 2) but it seems a great waste to take away from the player the possibility to replicate/personalize some genius battleplan ideas history is full of. Or create new ones, like coordinated German - Austrian push to encircle Russian troops in Poland during first days of war, etc.
Err... Thats what I am talking about. Update shows possibility of encircling enemy armies. Which was not confirmed until now.
- 5
Why would a game that is explicitly designed not to be a war game be designed to allow players to do that?
- 9
- 8
Because encircling enemy army allows you to kill less of your pops, spend less money, and be diplomatically vulnerable for shorter time, by ending war sooner.
And why a game that is NOT a war game would allow you to have as precise control over recruitment as it currently does? It could just let you set military budget and war ministry would use it the way it wants
- 9
- 2
- 1
Ok. Generals are allowed to encircle. The screenshots prove that. Nobody is taking your precious encirclements away from you.
- 7
- 6
- 1
Because the game is about managing your pops, politics and economics. If war is about balancing benefits and costs to their society as a whole then allowing players to use war gaming skills to end the war sooner changes those calculations, allowing players to engage in wars that would otherwise be too costly but now aren't since a player can war game their way out the negative consequences.
- 10
- 4
It really just always just boils down to that some people just can't fathom that a single game in the strategy genre might have warfare as a secondary mechanic instead of the primary mechanic, and are upset that a company would dare to make a strategy game where war is not the biggest focus of the game. So even if the warfare system doesn't work out perfect on this first try, I will still applaud Paradox for trying to do something actually different with the genre for once.
- 18
- 9
- 2
What makes you think that the boundary of "war gaming around" lies exactly where the devs set it? I am pretty sure that the current system is going to be easily exploitable as well. Why allow player to choose when and where to attack or defend, maybe it should be decided based on generals traits and doctrine?
My opinion is that the game should allow players to design the Schlieffen - like grand operations. Overwhelming part of german pre war planning and preparation was designed to execute this specific doctrine, and it would be great if the game gave player some agency over this aspect.
- 6
- 1
Uh, if you actually read the dev diaries, it is. You give generals the broad order to advance or defend along the entire front, but the generals based on their traits and the makeup of the battalions they're controlling are what determine where, what route, and how much they advance or where they try to defend along the front.
This is also a bad argument every time people keep bringing it up, because the developers made a design decision that is almost specifically based on the design of the Schlieffen Plan. It's called Violate Sovereignty, where the German player can perform the diplomatic action Violate Sovereignty against Belgium to widen the front between France and Germany at the expense of causing a diplomatic incident in the region.
- 8
- 7
I mean, if you can only use a limited number of commands for your troops then your options for exploiting the system are also, by definition, limited as well. All games are exploitable but that doesn't mean all exploits are the same. Beating the AI by micromanaging your troops so that the AI ends up doing something really dumb during a war is obviously something the devs don't want in the game because it will allow you to shorten a war and avoid the negative consequences of said war, which defeats the purpose of the game's design.
And the devs obviously disagree because they see those as war game mechanics, and I agree that they are, so don't belong in the game. It's that simple. Vicky3 isn't about war so the war related mechanics are going to simpler and less deep than the other mechanics. If you want in depth war mechanics you really do need to play another game.
- 6
- 2
If i could suggest one thing of no consequence, it would be to colour brazilians troops Blue and Red like they historicaly were colored.
- 1
Maybe this is a cultural thing, but I find referring to peoples' concerns as "whining" to be pretty inflammatory. I have also noticed that you have taken this same approach - insulting people who are frustrated or unhappy - in a few other threads when people are expressing their concerns. Why? What do you hope to accomplish? I am curious.
As far as warfare itself, I would just like there to be enough control to simulate conflicts like the ACW where the direction of attack was really important. I want to be able to tell a general to invade down the Mississippi or across the south through Georgia. I could be wrong, but I think that this requires two things: being able to not only set objectives for a campaign, but also being able to set the starting position. If I set New Orleans as the target, then a general could start the invasion from Northern Virginia, so it would not go down the Mississippi or if I set Savannah as a target, then a general could start the invasion from Northern Virginia instead of Tennessee. In my mind, giving the direction of an attack is strategic level.
That said, I am relatively sanguine about the situation at the moment. I'll try what Paradox has in mind. Maybe what they have created will allow the above or maybe it will make the above unnecessary. We will see. If it does neither and there are enough other people who feel the way that I do (based on voting on DD, my guess is around 30% share my concerns), then I have some faith that a DLC will add it in. They have already mentioned adding strategic targets. It only takes adding starting position and we are there.
- 15
- 2
- 1
It's pretty clear those models are for cultures, not separate states.
Last edited:
- 3
Exactly, this is why I took part in the discussion on this god-forsaken topic. I'm not a total skeptical, I think it can be all right, but it's just so hilarious how the very same people get immidiately triggered when someone express dissatisfaction with warfare and they immidiately try to silence that person, and now they actually don't just try to silence the total skeptical people but also moderates who welcomed strategic warfare and just want some features added so it's more strategic. I can't actually stop laughing when I see those same people triggered whenever someone tries to criticize virtually any game featureAs much as I'm not TOO skeptical about this new feature, it's very funny for me to see how aggresively these yes men are trying to stop you from criticising basically anything "because so is the dev idea". They seem terribly disturbed by some players' dissatisfaction apparently - what's the reason, I wonder. They are more devouted to defending the rightness of all the current choices than catholics were to defending the Pope and church during thirty years war
- 11
- 3
- 2
What do people constantly complaining about the war mechanics hope to accomplish? Yes, the devs are looking for suggestions but the game is going to launch with basically the system that has been described in the DDs. Yes, there will be more refining and so on but the fundamentals are going to the what has been revealed so far. To me, whining is complaining about something that is highly unlikely to change and people's complaints about the game's war mechanics are that right now. People are constantly complaining about something that isn't going to change. That's what whining is. Maybe if the game completely flops at launch the devs might change up the war mechanics but, outside of a worse case launch scenario, I can't see the war mechanics ever changing to something along the lines of what the skeptics want.
- 11
- 3
People giving feedback about something THEY don't like still make more sense than those claiming that whatever devs did is perfect and can't be changed and you mustn't even criticize it BECAUSE. I didn't mean to even take part in those discussions again but it's just so ridiculous.
- 7
- 6
- 1
Well I would've called it complaining but it's past the threshold from complaining to whining a long time ago.
I'm all for constructive criticism and feedback, but when people's feedback is based solely on tradition or inertia or the status quo of a genre convention simply because it's the status quo, on complaining that the overarching design philosophy and vision of a game caters to other people and not specifically to you, and on a fear of trying something new, that's not constructive feedback, that's whining.
- 11
- 3
- 1
- 1
"I allow criticism provided it's the criticism thast I like" Well, thanks
"Let no one dare to criticize the red book of comrade Mao, umm, sorry, the game design"
If asking to add a very specific game feature (attack directions) is whining to you, then I honestly don't have the word to call a person that jumps up literally every time when anyone says something about warfare with "no you can't criticize it because it's game design". You must have hell lot of free time dude, I just can't take it anymore Have fun everyone!
- 11
- 2
- 1
Devs stated they would PROBABLY add option to give specific non wargoal objectives to generals. I hope they will expand this feature to give player a bit more agency and fun
Actually under current build Schlieffen ends in Belgium. After achieving continuous frontline with France player has no control over whether to start main advance on Paris from Elsass or from Belgium
- 8