Well, as Goldfinch rightly says, the devs said that choosing attack directions will probably be allowed and this is what most ppl care about atm so you can sit back and relax maybe?
- 9
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.
Thank you for these responses. Maybe I am wrong, but I think that one point of the forums is feedback for the developers (the other being to create a community). Yes, people voiced their displeasure with the mechanics in the specific DD that was affiliated with that topic, but that was weeks and multiple DD ago and people could change their mind. Considering the monthly update is a summary of the the warfare DDs, which includes the topic where people had concerns, I would think that it should be fair game to reiterate those concerns as a way of saying that the concerns are still there. That seeing the DD that followed did not change those concerns.
Or to put it another way, the person who is unhappy has two options: do nothing or say something. If they do nothing, then the developers will not know that they are still unhappy. Trying to quiet them is sabotaging the feedback system that is part of the point of the forums.
- 9
- 5
But not all feedback is good feedback! "I would like to have more commands than 'attack' and 'defend'" is far different from "I want the Schlieffen plan." The first still works within the games design philosophy while the second doesn't. The devs are open to suggestions, as they have constantly said and demonstrated, but suggestions that work with the frame work they have designed for the game and a lot of the complaints about the war mechanics aren't recognizing that fact. Players wanting more micro are going to be disappointed because the devs are intentionally limiting micro in wars so people complaining about the lack of micro in wars are just whining, not adding anything constructive to the discussion.
See the above but if you expect the ability to a do something along the lines of the Schlieffen plan you are almost certainly going to be disappointed.
- 9
- 4
I think that is actually the wrong assumption. The devs are well aware that certain group of players are unhappy with their changes to the war mechanics and I would be willing to bet that one of the first major topics discussed during the initial stages of designing the game was the changes to war that have been made. The devs knew that it would be their most controversial decision. Even if there were no more complaints about war on the forum the devs are not going to think that everyone has changed their mind about the topic.
Personally, I don't have a problem with people not liking the new mechanics. I don't have a problem with people making suggestions to improve said mechanics. What I have a problem with is people who constantly demand more micro during wars. It's not happening. The devs have explicitly stated that it is their goal to limit micro during a war. Demanding more micro during wars is doing nothing but spamming the forum because its not going to happen.
- 8
- 7
Sure, they can bring it up. People have. Many times. But in those many times, when it's just the same people continuously bringing up the same tiresome points over and over and over again every single time, despite those points being addressed already multiple times, it just stops being a contribution to the discussion and ends up shutting down any actually constructive discussion.
- 10
- 7
Okay. Again, I think that the monthly update on warfare is still fair game to bring up concerns about the warfare system. Even if those concerns have been previously voiced.
Anyway, it is no more my place to tell you what to say as it is your place to tell other people what to say. Thank you for humoring me and having the discussion.
- 3
Well, if you think that adding destinations to offensives is micro and won't be added than you are contradicting yourself here because devs said it will probably be in game.
I think the whole discussion was started by someone saying "i wish they don't do it". So it was actually the casual discussion between these two talking points until some users joined for their ordinary complaining about whining and spamming. It's funny because this very action repeated each time in such discussions is what perfectly suits definition of whining and spamming
I'll follow others' example and let them continue in peace
- 8
1) Cheap word games and emojis don't win arguments. 2) Adding targets isn't micro. Telling your generals what their targets are, how they are going to campaign to take those targets and then giving them new orders immediately and at any time you choose is micro.
- 7
- 5
Victoria Tims
Report from the war Makro vi Micro.
Both sides have been using trench warfare as a production method for some time. Neither side has gained the upper hand so far. Despite a barrage of posts, memes and you-tub videos, neither side has been able to force a decisive breakthrough. And experts reckon that the feuds can only end with a negotiated peace. Some suggest waiting for the game's release before coming to a deviniteive conclusion about the game's strengths and weaknesses. But one thing is already clear. The cost of this war is enormous. All the time, frustration, hipe, friendships and excitement invested in it will be lost forever. But there is no war without war profiteers. The trolls on both sides have become rich and fat.
Report from the war Makro vi Micro.
Both sides have been using trench warfare as a production method for some time. Neither side has gained the upper hand so far. Despite a barrage of posts, memes and you-tub videos, neither side has been able to force a decisive breakthrough. And experts reckon that the feuds can only end with a negotiated peace. Some suggest waiting for the game's release before coming to a deviniteive conclusion about the game's strengths and weaknesses. But one thing is already clear. The cost of this war is enormous. All the time, frustration, hipe, friendships and excitement invested in it will be lost forever. But there is no war without war profiteers. The trolls on both sides have become rich and fat.
Last edited:
- 8
- 1
1) Idk what cheap game words you mean and what argument would they be supposed to win but whatever. You think I wanna win some argument here? Just pointing that the discussion started about someone NOT wanting devs to add giving targets to general, ppl disagreeing, and then complainers about whining jumped in
2) Where did I say I want telling generals how to campaign? It's all about giving targets and apparently some don't want even this.
Last edited:
- 6
- 2
- 1
what people don't get is a lot of people don't want micro but want some type of battleplan more akin to hoi4 battleplans. I'm fine with not microing individual units but I want to have a strategy for the war.
just clicking attack or defend is very simple and not very strategic. You should definitely be able to assign targets and I do think more orders than attack and defend would help. Also not being able to designate generals to a certain portion of the front kinda sucks.
also I'm pretty sure encirclements are more visual than strategic
just clicking attack or defend is very simple and not very strategic. You should definitely be able to assign targets and I do think more orders than attack and defend would help. Also not being able to designate generals to a certain portion of the front kinda sucks.
also I'm pretty sure encirclements are more visual than strategic
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
- 1
Stop pretending like you want realismSure, because in reality the state had no possibilities to influence military actions in any way. General: "Let's advance to Georgia instead of russian capital Moscow, it's warmer there". Entire government together with Emperor: " But please mister general, Moscow is more important, we beg you to consider going there". General: "Heh. No." This is such a tempting scenario, so fun and realistic
- 5
- 3
- 1
the front system is a calculation and any encirclements would be "done" by the ai. We can't influence the ai into encirclements or moves on a front aside from attack and defend.
It looks like france was heavily outnumbered so prussia broke through the front and encircled areas.
Not what you claimed. You said the encirclement we saw was only visual.
France was fighting against both Spain and Prussia at the same time, but based on the numbers (18 French troops encircled in the Rhine HQ, 16 on the frontline against the Prussians, 25 in the North France HQ, 53 in the South France HQ for a total of 112 Battalions vs the Prussians 146) combined with the 2:1 French: Prussian losses* we can see, it seems the instead what happened is that the Prussians won a couple of decisive battles and broke the French front line. The French AI then pulled most of the troops back to garrison.
Regardless, neither your interpretation of how this happened nor my interpretation supports your contention that the encirclement we see is mostly visual and not strategic.
*Not all of the French losses would be due to the Prussians, but given the much lower casualty rate of the Spanish we can safely conclude that most of them were.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
- 1
As the feelings of happiness starts to wade the nearby chatter start it's annoying penetration of the air, something about old men talking about waiting, plans or some strategy. But as our little companion enters through the mouth into the bloodstream, these annoying chatters become ever more silent as they should be. And our hero von Manstein puts his me... combat medicine back into the bag after consuming some more and drives onwards regardless of what some idiots in Berlin think. ( Note von Manstein is not a hero, but this way it sounds more story-esque. )Sure, because in reality the state had no possibilities to influence military actions in any way. General: "Let's advance to Georgia instead of russian capital Moscow, it's warmer there". Entire government together with Emperor: " But please mister general, Moscow is more important, we beg you to consider going there". General: "Heh. No." This is such a tempting scenario, so fun and realistic
Humans not obeying orders given by people that view themselves as above them in some abstract thing called hierarchy, likely never happened. That's why we don't have modern medicine, science, rebellions and instead we have feudal states everywhere.
Having absolute control over armies so fun and realistic ( I mean fun is subjective anyway, but absolute control is absolutely unrealistic )
- 7
- 1
Jesus Christ, biggest strawman I have seen yet in this discussion. Who the hell wants absolute control over armies? Me and him were simply advocating for some sort of battleplans, or ad hoc strategic objectives for armies - given that encirclements seem to be possible, would be super cool if player could Impact it somehow
- 6
- 1
This lengthy... piece of text...that probably was meant to be funny was written in response to some imaginary arguments, not even worth a serious response.
?
I see some more people got triggered so let me sum up this discussion to clarify some things up:
I, Goldfinch and others generally LIKED new screens because it looks like there will be some form of encirclement. Goldfinch said that if just they add choosing offensive targets (as devs said they probably will) it will be great. Someone disagreed in a civil manner. Civil discussion started. Then some people arrived, complaining about whining and spamming and basically saying you mustn't under no circumstances criticize warfare. Some people (me included) found this amusing.
Let me say something that will perhaps allow those triggered people to sit down and relax a bit.
WHAT YOU THINK ANYONE TALKING ABOUT WARFARE WANTS:
"2nd and 3rd division will cross the Dnestr river, occupy Zakharivka and Znamianka and then move south towards Odessa to meet forces of XI army corps landing in Fontanka to attack Odessa from 3 directions, using three artillery batalions. Meanwhile, on the Caucasus front... "
WHAT PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT STRATEGICAL WARFARE REALLY WANT:
"Okay, wargoal is russian Azerbaijan but I want to first take major city of Odessa to hurt russian economy. Then I want to land invasion force in Azov with goal of taking Astrakhan to cut off russian southern supply."
WHAT YOU APPEAR TO WANT:
"Strategy time! Hmmm, advance or defend?"
I hope this helps
- 7
- 2