It's fair to say that the scope of the bingo card expands and contracts according to what I find amusing at any given point in time.
- 5
- 2
Why does Paradox keep saying their historical grand strategy games aren't about war?
- Thread starter Adam363
- 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.
Curious, curious. You say the bingo card contains things that amuse you, and yet, it does not cater to my own preferences. Also, where are the letter tiles? There’s nary a double word score on the board!
I guess it’s just an objectively bad bingo card.
- 8
- 1
They say it because it's true. The Total War franchise is a perfect example of games that is 95% about war, war, and nothing but war. Paradox games are not similarly focused, even if war is a prominent feature in their games.
- 9
- 4
- 2
- 1
To be honest i can understand the new shift in Victoria saga, but saying that also about CK worries me. In CK you manage characters, and yet you are most of the time in decisive wars that could end your dynasty, raids, invasions, crusades... i find it ridiculous.
To me both managing characters and war are essential to Crusader Kings
To me both managing characters and war are essential to Crusader Kings
Last edited:
- 13
- 2
"I remember when Johnty5's bingo cards were hardcore. These days it's all jokes to drive memes for the casuals on Reddit"
- 12
- 1
It is in fact possible to make a game without the game also having deep mechanics for everything imaginable . . . you guys know that, right? More than that, it is advisable, even more than that, it is the only thing possible, otherwise, you are just simulating the universe.
Then again, if you wanted to create a deep warfare system and you played as the ruler, you would probably have very little influence, as the game would also need to simulate travel delays, disobeying orders, misunderstands so... I don't really even see the point of all this.
Then again, if you wanted to create a deep warfare system and you played as the ruler, you would probably have very little influence, as the game would also need to simulate travel delays, disobeying orders, misunderstands so... I don't really even see the point of all this.
- 9
- 5
- 2
- 1
Numerical superiority is more important the closer in tech you are to your opponents.
Inability to demobilize is pretty weak tbh. There's a half decent idea underlying the decision but the implementation leads to irritation more than anything else.
Why would making the player able to micro be less work? There's no systems in place to support that, they'd need to be built.
- 5
At least the devs know that the game is great if they only see complains about those timeless classics.
- 1
- 1
At least
Thats the complain
How many war focused paradox gsgs are there for the victorian era made in the current gen? None
Thats the complain
- 10
- 4
Doesn’t recreate the universe in its entirety. Literally unplayable.
I do appreciate the complaints, though. My spouse bought Vic 3 after I read up a few choice ones, so now I can try it out on his account
Some of the complaints paint a picture of a really lovely game.
- 3
- 1
In paradox games, the AI is so bad that war is usually the optimal way to expand your resources.
For example, in vic 3, there is no reason whatsoever to convince someone to be your subject or join your customs union when you could just take their states away and optimize the buildings. Whats the point of convincing hanover to be in my customs union when the AI wont build any of their oil rigs? The only real solution you have is to take the state away and build the oil rigs yourself.
Not to mention AI setting their generals to attack even though they are constantly losing every single battle. Better to control those generals yourself.
I just puppeted the Netherlands which also gave me the Dutch East Indies and i was like...why keep the Dutch East Indies? It is simply better for me to annex them and manage the colonies myself. Unlike EU4, there is no governing capacity mechanic or anything else to encourage the use of subjects, and the AI is a lot harder to mod in Vic 3. In EU4 i was able to quite easily mod the AI to be very competent, have very efficient economies, pick good idea groups and have effective militaries to help you out in wars...Prussia as a march is an excellent subject to have for example.
In Vic 3, i see no reason whatsoever to use subjects unless you are forced to, like if its a personal union which cant be annexed.
In vic 3, migration is a lot better, it is actually possible to grow your country effectively via migration if you are the richest in the world. But it is still much slower than conquering new states and nothing stops you from conquering new states for more pops/resources AND getting migration. War is simply the best, and in some cases, the only realistic way of expanding.
If paradox doesnt want to make war games, they need to make better alternatives to expansion than war. Vic 2 actually had a better mechanic for this which was sphering countries to get access to their resources and foreign investment to build up their factories. Vic 3 has a customs union system that is actually worse, because it forces you to subsidize the less optimal AI countries in your market, especially for things like transportation and services, the less efficient countries use tons, but dont produce enough, so you are using a higher % of your pops to produce those essential goods and getting less in return.
I actually experienced this as Belgium when I joined the UK's custom union and i took a major hit to transportation and services.
For example, in vic 3, there is no reason whatsoever to convince someone to be your subject or join your customs union when you could just take their states away and optimize the buildings. Whats the point of convincing hanover to be in my customs union when the AI wont build any of their oil rigs? The only real solution you have is to take the state away and build the oil rigs yourself.
Not to mention AI setting their generals to attack even though they are constantly losing every single battle. Better to control those generals yourself.
I just puppeted the Netherlands which also gave me the Dutch East Indies and i was like...why keep the Dutch East Indies? It is simply better for me to annex them and manage the colonies myself. Unlike EU4, there is no governing capacity mechanic or anything else to encourage the use of subjects, and the AI is a lot harder to mod in Vic 3. In EU4 i was able to quite easily mod the AI to be very competent, have very efficient economies, pick good idea groups and have effective militaries to help you out in wars...Prussia as a march is an excellent subject to have for example.
In Vic 3, i see no reason whatsoever to use subjects unless you are forced to, like if its a personal union which cant be annexed.
In vic 3, migration is a lot better, it is actually possible to grow your country effectively via migration if you are the richest in the world. But it is still much slower than conquering new states and nothing stops you from conquering new states for more pops/resources AND getting migration. War is simply the best, and in some cases, the only realistic way of expanding.
If paradox doesnt want to make war games, they need to make better alternatives to expansion than war. Vic 2 actually had a better mechanic for this which was sphering countries to get access to their resources and foreign investment to build up their factories. Vic 3 has a customs union system that is actually worse, because it forces you to subsidize the less optimal AI countries in your market, especially for things like transportation and services, the less efficient countries use tons, but dont produce enough, so you are using a higher % of your pops to produce those essential goods and getting less in return.
I actually experienced this as Belgium when I joined the UK's custom union and i took a major hit to transportation and services.
- 13
- 1
- 1
- 1
The elephants in the room (World War One and the American Civil War) seem curiously absent from the more strident defences of this game's approach to war. I actually remember my initial reaction to the news that war would be automated based on "front lines", I thought it would make sense for World War One (before I discovered one of the more comical aspects - the province by province hopscotch over the map) but make no sense for the ACW, which I'd suspected would get a least a little love.
Then, of course, I pinned my hopes, on the political/diplomatic elements of the ACW (like the Slavery Debate, Bleeding Kansas, Westward Expansion, and Reconstruction) getting a suitable level of attention. As it happens ... that turned out not to be the case.
Then, of course, I pinned my hopes, on the political/diplomatic elements of the ACW (like the Slavery Debate, Bleeding Kansas, Westward Expansion, and Reconstruction) getting a suitable level of attention. As it happens ... that turned out not to be the case.
- 17
- 3
- 2
Strange take. But sure. I can agree to disagree.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.
EDIT: *%&@ it. This is now my sig.
Ck3 and victoria have stated that war is not a focus in the game. This is a demonstrable shift. Which is what I'm saying.
War is a major part of human history and should be just as fleshed out and important as any other mechanic. My complaint is about their demonstrable shift from that.
My hypothesis is, which is also demonstrable, that rather than deal with player complaints about AI performance they say the game is about dynasties or economics.
Doesn't seem that much of a stretch.
Last edited:
- 14
- 12
- 1
You really think CK3 is about managing relationships? Cmon bro. Seems like they barely matter, and events are so rng and not impacted by relationships.
- 8
- 2
- 2
Do you know what's also a major part of human history? Economics. The work people do. The food they eat.
But in every other Paradox game, this is extremely abstracted, far more than warfare is in Vicky 3.
That's hardly the only concept that's vastly important to real humans and their lives that other Paradox games abstract into literally or figuratively nothing.
So I don't think your argument here holds water.
- 16
- 8
- 2
- 1
Have you ever actually looked at how people talk about Crusader Kings 2 and 3 and the sort of things that popularised them? Putting Glitterhoof on the council sold more copies of those games than every 'look how big my empire is' post put together.
- 6
- 4
- 1
Could you explain to me how your hypothesis is demostrable again?
To be clear: your hypothesis is, as I read it, “devs have decided to claim (as a form of trickery) a different focus in each IP so they do not have to improve AI performance”.
And that’s something you can prove in spite of 1) devs demonstrably altering AI (recorded in patch notes) and 2) previous dev statements about the focus being to emphasize one part of the simulation as a design choice not as a way to hide their flaws.
- 6
- 3
People talk about the memes because thats the value of memes. But most people play it to build an empire, not because they genuinely find incest marriages entertaining.
- 11
- 7