Why does Paradox keep saying their historical grand strategy games aren't about war?

[Adam363]

CK3 Game Director:

"Warfare is not and never will be a primary focus for CK3" (Dev Diary #109 - Floor Plan for the Future)

Victoria 3 Game Director:

"The main reason is simply that Victoria 3 is a game primarily focused on Economy, Diplomacy and Politics and we felt a more strategic approach to warfare mechanics fits the game better than micro-intensive tactical maneuvering (Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #22 - The Concept of War)


I get the feeling that this shift is because they have completely given up trying to improve their AI and now they can just deflect their failures and poor design decisions with "well warfare is not really a focus of the game"

What's next? No war in HOI 5?

Paradox, your shift away from war in your historical GSG is idiotic. Please stop.

 

[Herr B.]

Its also funny, because in all ages war was the primary source of diplomatic power projection. Nobody cared what you had to say, if you didn't had an army to back it up.

 

[Rabid]

How dare they only make 3/6 of their recent games (HoI4, EU4 and Imperator vs. CK3, V3 and Stellaris) with warfare as the unequivocal primary focus, how unreasonable.

 

[Herr B.]

How dare they only make 3/6 of their recent games (HoI4, EU4 and Imperator vs. CK3, V3 and Stellaris) with warfare as the unequivocal primary focus, how unreasonable.

Its not about warfare as the primary focus, its about it being a focus at all. After player 4 campains in Vic3, warfare just seems neglected. Its not fun and just RNG.

 

[coffeelingfine]

How dare they only make 3/6 of their recent games (HoI4, EU4 and Imperator vs. CK3, V3 and Stellaris) with warfare as the unequivocal primary focus, how unreasonable.

Should Stellaris be lumped in with V3 and CK3? I thought war was still a pretty big deal in that game

 

[Zarlagash]

Should Stellaris be lumped in with V3 and CK3? I thought war was still a pretty big deal in that game

Yeah and there is a lot more to do in Imperator then just war now, it didn't work in the end but they did end up fleshing it up a fair bit

 

[Marmelado]

I actually like that Vic 3 does not focus on war. It provides a different challenge and offers different stategies to learn.

There are enough war-focused games already.

 

[GrafKeks]

Its also funny, because in all ages war was the primary source of diplomatic power projection. Nobody cared what you had to say, if you didn't had an army to back it up.

The armed forces are not war.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Because when the primary objective of many of the major powers of the period was to avoid the disruptions of a proper war, a far more important problem was how to project your force without triggering destabilizing conflicts.

 

[bugglesley]

Its also funny, because in all ages war was the primary source of diplomatic power projection. Nobody cared what you had to say, if you didn't had an army to back it up.

Its also funny, because in all ages the economy is the primary source of military strength. Nobody cared how well you can micro soldiers, if you didn't have the economy to back it up.

 

[Herr B.]

The armed forces are not war.

War is the extension of state policy [diplomacy]. (C v Clausewitz)

While armed forces may be a requirement for war, they aren't the war itself.

Its also funny, because in all ages the economy is the primary source of military strength. Nobody cared how well you can micro soldiers, if you didn't have the economy to back it up.

Not quite, but I get what you wanted to say. (Counterexample: Friedrich the Great of Prussia. Prussia was dirt poor, but he was a great commander/"troop microer")

And I'm all for the economy being the primary focus. However, there needs to be some focus on war, and that is clearly lacking.

 

[Cyhort]

Its also funny, because in all ages the economy is the primary source of military strength. Nobody cared how well you can micro soldiers, if you didn't have the economy to back it up.

Cool, so you're agreed that the economy and war are equally important and should both be major focuses of these kinds of games? Awesome dude, I'm right there with you.

 

[csward53]

The must mean it in the most literal interpretation possible; like HoI and Sid Meier's Gettysburg are literally games about a war or battle. They are probably trying to say it is more of a 4x strategy game like Civ to communicate the scope of the game to potential customers. Why they don't just say that or make up their own terms that fit better I do not know.

 

[johnty5]

Let's play VICTORIA 3 COMPLAINT BINGO!*

I get the feeling that this shift is because they have completely given up trying to improve their AI and now they can just handwave away from their failures and poor design decisions with "well warfare is not really a focus of the game"

"Assert secret conspiratorial reason for a design decision you don't like" - TICK

What's next? No war in HOI 5?

"Make an absurd comparison with another Paradox game"- TICK

Paradox, your shift away from war in your historical GSG

"Remember the good old days? Pepperidge Farm remembers..." - TICK

is idiotic. Please stop.

"Devs are stupid!" - TICK



* not all complaints about Victoria 3 are unjustified. However, silly complaints are silly. Who gets to decide what constitutes "silly"? Everyone gets to decide for themselves, obviously. Please don't reply with "WHAT?!1 SO WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO DISLIKE ANYTHING ABOUT VICTORIA 3 NOW?! FANBOY", as that is literally the centre square in Victoria 3 complaint bingo.


EDIT: *%&@ it. This is now my sig.

 

[Kyoumen]

CK3 Game Director:

"Warfare is not and never will be a primary focus for CK3" (Dev Diary #109 - Floor Plan for the Future)

Victoria 3 Game Director:

"The main reason is simply that Victoria 3 is a game primarily focused on Economy, Diplomacy and Politics and we felt a more strategic approach to warfare mechanics fits the game better than micro-intensive tactical maneuvering (Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #22 - The Concept of War)


I get the feeling that this shift is because they have completely given up trying to improve their AI and now they can just handwave away from their failures and poor design decisions with "well warfare is not really a focus of the game"

What's next? No war in HOI 5?

Paradox, your shift away from war in your historical GSG is idiotic. Please stop.

Because Crusader Kings' draw is fantasy eugenics managing interpersonal relationships, and Victoria's big draw is managing the economy. It was in both Victoria 1 and 2 entirely possible to have a satisfying game with lots of stuff to do and never actually go to war (of course depending on who you were playing), something that is very much not true of Europa Universalis and HoI.

Also, for pity's sake, can you people get over this already? It's been a year since the war dev diary and never a day has gone by since without people coming in to bitch about it. Yes, literally one GSG wasn't made to have war as a primary focus, such a tragedy, you'll just have to content yourself with every single other one.

 

[mork77]

Its also funny, because in all ages war was the primary source of diplomatic power projection. Nobody cared what you had to say, if you didn't had an army to back it up.

That is exactly it. You take the role of the diplomat. You decide if you want to start the diplomatic play or not and if to back down. after that. the generals take over and you wait for the result.

The deciding factors for winning wars in this period was technological and numerical superiority as well as better training, supply, medicine and organization. That you can take care of.

Just go through the different wars.

All the colonial wars were won due to technological superiority (or, with regard to the Boer wars, numbers)

1864, 1866, 1870, all won due to technological superiority and training

1861-1865, in the end won due to technological superiority and numbers.

And the list goes on.

 

[Kyoumen]

All the colonial wars were won due to technological superiority (or, with regard to the Boer wars, numbers)

Now let's be fair here: in addition to numbers, they ALSO had concentration camps.

 

[Jackadsa]

Cool, so you're agreed that the economy and war are equally important and should both be major focuses of these kinds of games? Awesome dude, I'm right there with you.

I think it is fine to make a game focussed more on war or more on economy in any of the eras paradox touches, there is no 'should' one way or the other, the only question is whether there is a market for the game. I bet there is a fun WW2 era factory simulator to be made where war is abstracted and not touched by the player, and I'm sure that there is a really fun war-focused Victorian era game to be made. Is it really a problem that Paradox has chosen to focus some of their games more on warfare and other more on economy, and some more balanced? I think there is some logic to their choice of which things to focus more on in each era, but I don't think it is a super important argument to make. I think it makes sense for the company to focus on different things for different games, otherwise there is a risk of making clones like is the case for the Total War games.

 

[Herr B.]

That is exactly it. You take the role of the diplomat. You decide if you want to start the diplomatic play or not and if to back down. after that. the generals take over and you wait for the result.

The deciding factors for winning wars in this period was technological and numerical superiority as well as better training, supply, medicine and organization. That you can take care of.

Just go through the different wars.

All the colonial wars were won due to technological superiority (or, with regard to the Boer wars, numbers)

1864, 1866, 1870, all won due to technological superiority and training

1861-1865, in the end won due to technological superiority and numbers.

And the list goes on.

In theory, you are completely right. (Or almost - some rules did lead armies personally.)

However, when playing the game, I have a very different experience. The entire warfare system is designed around RNG. Numerical superiorty is worth very little. Technical superiority is worth a bit more, but even than bad RNG can delay things for months.

Also, you can't demobilize while "at war" (even if it is phony), which can unnessecarily bankrupt you.

Having the ability to micro would solve these issues. Alternatively, PDX could take the effort to actually fix the current system, but I think the former option is less work.

 

[kawamuratc]

Let's play VICTORIA 3 COMPLAINT BINGO!*



"Assert secret conspiratorial reason for a design decision you don't like" - TICK



"Make an absurd comparison with another Paradox game"- TICK



"Remember the good old days? Pepperidge Farm remembers..." - TICK



"Devs are stupid!" - TICK



* not all complaints about Victoria 3 are unjustified. However, silly complaints are silly. Who gets to decide what constitutes "silly"? Everyone gets to decide for themselves, obviously. Please don't reply with "WHAT?!1 SO WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO DISLIKE ANYTHING ABOUT VICTORIA 3 NOW?! FANBOY", as that is literally the centre square in Victoria 3 complaint bingo.

What about the square for spamming? They’ve got that, too. Same post in CK3 forum.