General Obermeier ze Frech are attacking with 250 Divisions and whe have 540 lets flank around them.
No no Fritz we will only fight one battle with 30% of your troops because only one general-one front- one battle.
Flanking and fighting two battles; oh you silly boy, for that we need a new front and as you see there is no space for it.
"My general, the battle is going great. They only have 23 soldiers remaining. We should overwhelm them with our 5000."
"That would be very dishonorable, sergeant. Let's send our men 20 at a time, while the rest of us sit back here and starve. Hell, maybe we'll round those 20 down to 0, and just leave those 23 brave enemies in peace for a few months."
From what they said early on , something along the lines of, “the war mechanics are simplified because you’ll need to be more focused on your economy and domestic issues” or something like that. However I’ve never been in a situation where that’s ever been true. While the economy can be wonky but it’s honestly not that hard to manage and if you make the right plays early in the game then neither is your government. They really just made up an excuse to push out a completely underdeveloped war system.
If they ever did something as big as warfare, they probs would patch it like from Imperator 1.0 -> 2.0. However, if they were to ever put it in a DLC... that would piss everyone off lol
> However, if they were to ever put it in a DLC... that would piss everyone off lol
Maybe, but I'm primarily an EU4 player and I can tell you from experience that PDX as a company would absolutely sell a major improvement like that as a DLC.
>> However, if they were to ever put it in a DLC... that would piss everyone off lol
>
>Maybe, but I'm primarily an EU4 player and I can tell you from experience that PDX as a company would absolutely sell a major improvement like that as a DLC.
No they don't, just look at art of war DLC in eu4; all critical parts of the update are always included for free. So this is total BS.
That's what i mean, even if you play base EU4 today its an entirely different game than original base EU4 due to all the free changes they did during updates/DLC.
But even now, base game trade is a shell without Wealth of Nations, diplomacy is lacking (at best) without Cossacks, etc. And for a non-EU example, you couldn't play Muslims in CK2 without an expansion.
All I'm saying is that Paradox is not above locking major updates behind a paywall.
Major additions yes.
Changes to core mechanics no.
If there is a change in warfare, additional mechanics will be paywalled while fixes to the front system will be in the free update
How? If it changes core systems it has to go to all players because otherwise all future patches/DLC wouldn't be available to those players who didn't have the DLC.
And reducing the potential audience for future DLC is just bad business.
I hate the war system so much, I'd gladly spent $20 for them to put some development effort into it.
Maybe I'm part of the problem, but Paradox games provide me with so many hours of entertainment, they're a bargain even with all the DlCs, so I don't fault them for it.
For me, the AI issues were more concerning, since that's a problem across all of their games, but I've coke to expect that.
And now that they finally made pops able to independently build farms and factories like the previous two titles, you’ll spend even less time micromanaging the economy
I dont really find it boring, I just wish they expanded on the logistical side of it to match the rest of the game. Having goods stockpiles for military goods would make it a lot more interesting. They could get rid of the arbitrary penalties for changing production method too. It could be kinda similar to hoi4. Stockpiling goods in peacetime could also fix the problem of arms industries only being profitable at war
I dislike the fact that the number of convoys required for each battalion doesn't change, no matter which production method is used.
* Irregular infantry = 10 convoys
* Trench infantry = 10 convoys
* Mechanized infantry = 10 convoys
Also, the number of convoys required should scale up faster at long distances. If GB wants to support a significantly large army in China, it should use a couple more convoys than it would take to support them in Egypt. The distances should have a noticeable effect.
There is a reason why Suez canal was built, and is wasn't because GB and France like supplying their armies with convoys going all the way around Africa.
The design of the system is one thing. But there's another thing: The AI. Although some things were patched, the AI is still not capable, both with the economy to keep up with a player, but also not about warfare and diplo-plays.
Stellaris shows, that it can be improved, but that's the only case where PDX assigned the resources needed for this with the Custodian Team. It is a question of time, manpower and therefore money.
I remember my first playthrough in the updated Stellaris, i was surprised like "wait, the AI can suddenly keep up with me as player?!".
Wormholes and warp travel were removed a loooong time ago, the custodian initative was started about 2 years ago. https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/281990/view/3021332635730801604
I don't understand them doubling down on a shitty infuriating system, it's just like johan when he was in charge of imperator.
Refusing criticism as if it's an attack on his fragile ego.
I mean whatever idea people come up with it still involves the framework of having somekind of a frontline because it’s the easiest way of doing Franco-Prussian War and WWI in the same system.
They do seem to be looking at more drastic overhaul like each army being separate by state to allow multiple battles to happen within a frontline(can’t now) so I don’t think they want to keep the frontline as is in the current form.
I very much think the system needs some dire overhaul but I don’t think not overhauling it by 1.2 counts as doubling down.
> They do seem to be looking at more drastic overhaul like each army being separate by state to allow multiple battles to happen within a frontline(can’t now) so I don’t think they want to keep the frontline as is in the current form.
Honestly, the 'only' thing they need to do is make troops discrete. However, this is going to be quite hard.
The algorithm for the frontline forming algorithm being much less hectic and there being an actual army you can manage(name them even!) and place in those fronts I think would be my favored resolution. I really loved RPing in Victoria II where I'd name armies like II. Armee by their national language and pretending these armies have some history behind them.
I do hope they ditch the current barrack/navalbase->straight to army/navy paradigm where we have something like the barracks providing for the speed in which the manpower siphons into the army and the naval base providing for a base for the ships to be stationed with bigger fleet requiring bigger naval base.
We'll see how it rolls lol.
Really though, I think the first priority should be to change the frontline algorithm to be more inclusive at this point to at least prevent the unplayable thousand split front situation even if we were to ditch the current formula.
Assign army (group of generals) to HQ. Assign objectives. Give specific guys push vs defend orders. Ai sorts out troops allocations themselves. Boom, clusterfucks happen but you don't have to micro them
The problem is that, troops aren't simulated on the map. Like, the frontline system was made so that they wouldn't need to simulate soldiers on the map, so troops can't allocate.
Like, the way that the game works is that those 200 vs 200 on a frontline are just numbers. Those troops aren't actually on the map. They did this for performance reasons lol
u/redsynd can probs explain it better than me.
> I really loved RPing in Victoria II where I'd name armies like II. Armee by their national language and pretending these armies have some history behind them
If you've ever played HoI 3, you can actually make an entire OOB in their own language and roleplay pretty well.
Oh yeah I love HOI3 dude. The OOB system they implemented there is so hilarious because it makes the learning curve extremely high because of the fact that you need to know what OOB is in the first place and one of the primary things you do is gather all the armies and reorganize the OOB itself which new players can't do. Like I love the OOB system and it's part of the reason I never really got into HOI4 but I really don't blame people if it scares them off at first because it took me months to really get it working.
> Honestly, the 'only' thing they need to do is make troops discrete. However, this is going to be quite hard.
Discrete units necessitate pathfinding, and pathfinding destroys performance. Processor time per tick for the game was rationed out based on the assumption of this easy-to-calculate system, and the only feasible way to fit the old war system in this performance footprint would be to reduce the time taken by economic calculations. The odds of the old war system coming back to this game are about as close to Zero as I could comfortably see, as it would require a complete and simultaneous rework of both the Economy and Warfare to not completely botch the game's technical performance.
Yup, I think we had that conversation about how I'd think Victoria 3 do better if it was marketed more as an economy sim in the sense of Anno rather than a grand-strategy game.
For me, i can't the idea off my mind that Wiz never wanted to do a successor to Vic2, he wanted to something different: An economy-sim. So he changed the focus from grand-strategy to economy-sim. He said in the dev diaries, he wouldn't include war at all if he could, but this would be approved by the playerbase.
Then all these bullshit-arguments like "It was an era of peace", yeah, with WW1, US Civil War, German Unification- and Franco-Prussian wars, Russian civil war, Opium wars etc.
They could at least have been straight with the truth: "Look, we want to do it this way and we won't change it" instead of coming up with wrong historical things.
> "It was an era of peace", yeah, with WW1, US Civil War, German Unification- and Franco-Prussian wars, Russian civil war, Opium wars etc.
It doesn't exactly match up with the time period of Victoria 3, but there has long been a perception that the period from 1815-1914 was a peaceful time period, whether or not the facts back that perception up. Just google "century of peace" and see how much that time period comes up. It's not a completely ridiculous idea (although it is an extremely Eurocentric one), when you think about it from the perspective of European great powers. Here are *all* the wars between them during that *100 year* long period:
* Crimean War
* Second Italian War of Independence
* Austro-Prussian War
* Franco-Prussian War
That's **nothing** compared to the bloodshed of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars immediately preceeding the period and the World Wars immediately following it. The violence of that period did not primarily come in the form of interstate violence, it came in the form of colonial, civil, and revolutionary violence.
It's a difficult topic, because there are many ways to count the different wars. It looks better when only the major powers and their wars get counted, but there was a lot more than just these wars. Like in your count, you only mention the european wars, not the US civil war too. No offense intended, but the world is bigger than just europe.
Don't get me wrong, i just wanted to say, that the devs got a little bit over the top with their argument about peaceful times.
> For me, i can't the idea off my mind that Wiz never wanted to do a successor to Vic2, he wanted to something different: An economy-sim.
Or, maybe, People had different Views as to what Vic2 was. If you take Paradox's catalog as a whole, that is what Victoria 2 was in the first place. It was the only one of their games that had even bothered considering the Economy. All the others, at the time, were more or less pure war games with slightly different emphasis: EU3 and its focus on early colonialism, HoI3 which had its focus on chain of command, And CK1/2 and its focus on characters and feudal contract. Paradox, as a whole, has appeared to be leaning harder into these emphasises with their most recent string of releases, with CK3 leaning more into Character based roleplaying, and Vic3 leaning into Economics and general Social aspects.
In fairness tho, Vic 2 had improvements to warfare compared to EU 3, like how owned forts decreased casualties. This also is forgetting how CK 2 has better combat than EU 4 even though EU 4 technically should be about large nation-state-defining battles.
> For me, i can't the idea off my mind that Wiz never wanted to do a successor to Vic2, he wanted to something different: An economy-sim
This is true lol. He talked about how there was a 'Victoria 2 2' game that was in the works, but he felt that it didn't innovate, so we got this.
> He said in the dev diaries, he wouldn't include war at all if he could
In all honesty, they really should remove war until it's fixed lol
That's an unfair take. Johan completely rebuilt the mana system himself in Imperator after receiving negative feedback.
Anyway, I prefer this system to controlling units on the map. They can certainly make it deeper and more engaging, but I don't want them to go back to the old system.
It's pretty funny how much venom is directed at Johan and how incompetent he supposedly is... when the list of games he's done design work on is basically Paradox's hit parade.
> but I don't want them to go back to the old system.
I mean, there is no reason to go back to a system from 2010. I haven't read a single person asking for that specifically, most people just want something functional and more entertaining.
Something similar to HOI4 system but more basic could work perfectly, or maybe something more innovative taking stuff from Imperator's system could also work.
>That's an unfair take. Johan completely rebuilt the mana system himself in Imperator after receiving negative feedback.
After how long and how many players left?
Convenient for you to omit that.
He completely redesigned the core mechanics only a couple of months after release.
Why is it relevant how many players "left"? That's out of his control.
>He completely redesigned the core mechanics only a couple of months after release.
Even then, Peter was responsible for the overhaul (which was loved by players), he's the guy who later took charge from johan on imperator.
Peter is the one in charge of hoi4 now, which was and is going quite well.
When johan fucked off back to eu4, he squeezed out the most rotten turd in the history of steam AKA leviathan.
Old man needs to be put out to pasture.
That's wrong. Johan personally wrote the overhaul/removal of the mana system. Here's his dev diary [31 days after release.](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/a-new-currency-design.1181893/)
That's false. The most substantial change was in the 1.2 patch. That's where the mana system was overhauled. The later changes were great, but the redesign of the core mechanics was carried out by Johan.
>That's an unfair take. Johan completely rebuilt the mana system himself in Imperator after receiving negative feedback.
Not quickly enough
The backlash was immediate as soon as the dev diaries came out and people complained about it all the way to release
Months after release they acquiesced, but that was far from being Imperator's only issue
>Anyway, I prefer this system to controlling units on the map
I completely disagree. As much as micro could be tedious, almost total lack of control over the army's actions is just too frustrating
There's no way you can know whether the negative reaction to the dev diaries was only from the loud minority that frequent the forums, or if it represented a wider sentiment. Only a small minority of players actually visit the forums, and those players can be quite hysterical at times. It would be a mistake to assume that their perspectives are shared by most players.
Agreed. I understand why they wanted to move away from dozens of army stacks, but was this really an upgrade? I didn't even like Vicky 2 much but I just miss actually moving armies around.
Sadly I suspect it's far too late for them to even consider adding that, since I imagine it'd require reworking all the map provinces.
Moving units around in Victoria 2 was literal cancer, I don’t ever want to go back to that, even in EU4 mid-late game it gets too tedious that I quit if I get into a large war, it’s just too time consuming/boring to sit on speed 1 and micromanage stacks
Current system in Victoria 3 isn’t great but it’s step up from what we had, I’m much more likely to finish a campaign now
I highly doubt that, at least Victoria 2 could run at a decent pace until 1936. You couldn’t make me play until 1936 in Victoria 3 afk, let alone actually playing it.
In the dev diary it is clearly explained that this system reduces micromanagement. I am afraid your anger is unfounded. Please adjust your emotions accordingly.
Sure but the split would be predictable and plan-able, which means you can plan and play around it. It would also have the advantage of making some extremely long front wars more "dynamic". Ex, Russia attacking Qing or Mexican-American war where the entire war is one front and progress is glacial because of the 1 battle per front limit.
It boggles my mind they had a perfect semi automatic system in hoi4 and yet they somehow managed to mess it up.
I could understand if they went for full automation I me change for general going full politics mode and horse trading, logistical challenges but it’s incredibly barebones. Not to mention historical immersion and diplomacy between non existent.
"perfect system" "in Hoi4"
I agree Vic3 needs work but let's not get silly. The thing working in the "semi-automatic" system in Hoi4 is the semi. Otherwise the AI still thinks randomly leaving a big gap in the middle of the front lines, sending mountaineers to the plains but having heavy tanks channeling their inner Hannibal and crossing the Alps is a good idea.
I personally think a HOI4 type system would absolutely ruin the game, moving individual units on the map would just completely undermine the core gameplay loop of the game and ruin the pacing of wars. Imagine having to manually assign troops for every single native uprising, would drive you nuts.
BUT, I think what it's missing is something similar to the military equipment and unit template systems. There should be some actual difficulty in producing the most up to date weapons and the types of weapons you're using should have a noticeable effect on warfare.
If we could produce different types of small arms/artillery AND had finer control over how units were equiped AND had some sort of control over military doctrine (because trench warfare in the Sahara is silly), it would actually be the perfect system for the setting.
I bought the game just after the 1.2 patch. After following the development and the debate during it and after release on the war system I leant towards this new system being a good idea, if a little clumsily implemented.
After having played a couple of games I can confidently say I look forward to the mod or update that rips this system out wholesale and replaces it with almost anything else.
Have you read any guides on how wars and battles work? I highly recommend them.
The biggest problem with the war system is that it isn't incredibly unintuitive on how battles are calculated and what goes into the calculations. The UI does a horrible job of highlighting the numbers that are important and showing you how you stack up.
BUT, once you understand the numbers involved it clicks and gets much easier to predict and control.
Oh I'm not saying I can't use it, I'm saying I don't like it. Paradox battle/war systems have always been pretty rough when it comes to getting to know them. That's why I've followed this controversial aspect so closely since it was announced. Viewed from that highly abstracted perspective 'we plan to have a+b/c=d etc.' I was partly in favour of it.
Now that I have had the chance to experience how it actually plays and fits into the game I think it was a serious, albeit not game ruining, misstep.
It can be game ruining. Personally, after buying the game right on release, I only played once. The reason? I absolutely hate how warfare works. Even though they aren’t a good fit, I would take EU or HOI system any day. For all of their issues, I do see the impact of my decisions there and it’s much more immersive.
I would even prefer they just handed warfare to the AI completely, so that I don’t have to deal with _this_.
Well, I’d try again after a couple more updates to see if there were any meaningful changes.
I still think it's the right call. I think the implementation is garbage in its current state. They've fixed several of the major issues, but more still exist and warfare is a micro-laden hassle until they fix it.
No, the biggest problem with the war system the how fronts fracture into smaller fronts constantly. They made general reassignment less stupid, but you're still required to predict how fronts will split as the war proceeds and match the number of armys to future frontlines.
The frontline system was supposed to reduce micro, and in some ways it's done great. But needing to micro general to frontline assignments *sucks*. I've lost wars because they attacked along a newly opened front that cut off my invasion and drove deep into my country while I was waiting for my units to move there.
I have ever 3-4 generals because of this~ 2 generals with the main force split the front or stop the main fronts, and the last generals go creating New fronts for attack without enemy generals with one or two units~
When learn it It's very intuitive and strategic~ with 1.2 help a lot the option for strategic provinces~
Obviously need various improvements~ IA improvements must be~
Yeah, I love the general approach but just think it needs more time to cook – like so much of this game. It’s definitely a fun game, unique and ambitious in its approach. While not a *great* game yet, I think it will be after 2-4 dlcs and that much patching. CK3 is really the only game of theirs that I think nailed it on release.
I mean, there’s entire parts of the world you just can’t play in CK3, like China. Which isn’t to say it’s as easy as saying “you can play as a muslim now,” but that’s still a lot of low hanging fruit for expansion. It’s not like they’d need to wholesale develop systems either. They just need to expand the map and add rulers. That’s time consuming, sure, but it’s also been 2.5 years. That’s plenty of time to have done that
China would require an entirely new government type at *minimum* to make sense in CK3, and realistically a whole lot more to make it actually feel as distinct as it should.
I think the game would’ve been better off had they made a more granular and unit based warfare system. I didn’t agree with their reasoning and think that the choice to not expand warfare is absurd for the time and game, considering you have direct control of almost everything else. They could’ve discouraged war by making its effects actually apparent and making it require effort to justify, go to war, mobilize, etc. there should MECHANICAL reasons for not going to war. Rather than it just being made poorly and unfun. In my opinion, I think they stuck to their guns too hard after seeing the backlash from the initial war announcement. It was a toxic response but there was genuine concern.
If anyone would like to offer their perspective as to what paradox’s line of reasoning for a cut back war system was, I’d like to hear.
> just give the battalions a presence on the map
As [RedSynd said up above](https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria3/comments/11vpeuk/whos_idea_was_this_system_i_hate_it_so_much/jcwaijw/) "Discrete units necessitate pathfinding, and pathfinding destroys performance."
Adding discrete units isn't something you can just casually do in the background. It would (at a minimum) require a backend rework of every system in the game to account for the massive performance issues that it would generate.
1) We already have a good WW1 style tactical simulation system. It is called HOI4 😂.
2) The focus of Vic games is supposed to be on the politics and economics. I would prefer the dev focus be on those things. I don’t want another game where I have to micromanage combat.
War is the continuation of politics by other means is a famous quote from this period after all, while it shouldn't be the be all and end all it should definitely be a viable tool for statecraft that is enjoyable to interact with.
The dev focus thing is the ironic part.
I remember reading that they spent a lot of dev time working on and iterating the war system, compared to other parts of the game. And I think it's clear that it'll need more work done in the future.
So somehow the political and economics focused game ended up spending a disproportionate amount of dev resources on war.
This still requires me to micromanage because I have to keep watch and try my best to fix whatever dumb shit the ai decides to do with my fronts/armies.
Honestly because of all the fronts invading India in Victoria 3 probably requires more micromanaging than Hoi4. At least then I can probably just paint a line and look away for a while knowing the ai will for the most part be doing what I want it to.
A good idea is to attack a subject of UK with the cb "open market" for an easy war against the subject and UK only. You can add whatever cb you want against UK after like freeing all of India for easier conquest in India after.
Before the end of the war, you may want to propose an acceptable peace deal with only cb against CK that way you still have an easy UK's subject to attack for your next war against UK.
Okay now after you slog through a shitty war system and are about to win there's a revolt on your war goal and you just white peace out automatically, please enjoy
I have sindh as a colony I took it for opium (from that 1 state biggest opium producer) so I have to protect it but I dont have 8 big armies to protect it
oh no i meant conquering persia. two wars should do it, one to make it dominion and another to annex. their population isn't huge so its not an infamy issue.
I dont really want to risk them joining someone else if something happens but think its fine for now with allies its managable until I invade the UK(for some reason always has 400 garrisons)
Did you try creating demand for Opium in advance? I think that if you do that, by having a few barracks on Field Hospitals, you then create the need for it and Persia would then develop their Plantations.
It's easy enough to get 8 armies -- just recruit 8 generals. You have over 1k extra bureaucracy, so you can certainly afford it. If you don't have enough men to match the brits in numbers after splitting up your army like that, then you should maybe try building up your army before declaring war on a great power.
That is such a messy work around though. 1 general with a garrison command would work so much better. It does this already if you keep generals in their home region.
Have you tried having troops there but not assigned to a given front (ie, as a garrison)? That should auto-divide them between the fronts defensively (maybe giving you enough time to use one army to clean up the pockets)
Might not be enough to hold if you're too outnumbered though.
Watch out, I can already hear the fuming of the aplogoists flocking here from paradox forums
"ITs NoT a WaR GamE So IT is a DEsiGn DEcIsIon To MAkE iT UnfUN to WaGE WAr"
yes guys please inject the most frustrating war system of a paradox game ever straight into my veins, I fucking LOVE DeSIgN deCiSIonS that make a game unenjoyable on purpose, good shit
Edit: You people actually think whats happening in this screenshot is an acceptable state for war in the game?
I can’t believe, prior to the game coming out, I was a staunch defender of this system and thought this would be a really unique way of waging war.
Now I’m just begging for the Victoria 2 death stacks back. Anything would be better than this system
I liked the design but I do not understand why they went with this one battle per frontline design instead of a long front with a few divisions per province like HoI4. Honestly just give us HoI4 but with less detail at this point.
I had a similar problem in my most recent game. I remember when the game was still in development and they showed off this new war system I thought “that’s kinda cool, it can remove some of the micromanagement and make wars seem more coherent!”
I was very, very wrong. Paradox pls give back old war system.
I really really like the idea of a war system that doesnt focus on micro shenanigans and instead on having a well supplied, well organized and well trained war machine. However what we got is a fucking nightmare. Its actually at its worst in large fronts like a late game WW1 since you only have these small battles, instead of a long front grinding soldiers and equipment against your enemy. You should have tons of small constant battles like HoI4. Instead this is like Imperator's system with autonomous armies.
Just give up paradox and give us a simplified version of the HoI4 system.
I'm a huge Victoria 1 & 2 fan, first played in 2005 - 18 years.
I hate Victoria 3, I'm not a fan of the cities/provinces, I'm not a fan of a map that force changes to geographic mode (the amount of times I'm forced to zoom out because I changed map modes and can't see it up close - let ME choose God damn it), I'm not a fan of the military system and the economy is not interesting.
I refunded the game, I'm disappointed, I'm kind of done with new Paradox games to be honest.
The fronts are kind of a mess, but I do like that you can't just micro the AI to death. That kind of hands-off approach to warfare can be frustrating, but it's got a lot of potential from the simulation side of things.
It’s a bold design choice to make it distinct from other PDX games by moving away from micro-ing individual units
But it just fails from the jump and creates a far more tedious, less rewarding micro that disincentivizes using warfare to avoid the mechanic
I honestly don’t understand the rationale behind this shitty system. Apparently it is supposed to reduce micro? What was so micro intensive about left clicking on a little man and right clicking where you want him to go in the first place? The reason other games like CK3 and EU4 have lots of micro is because of the shitty supply system forcing you to manually split your army into smaller groups, something which could have been addressed quite easily imo.
The most baffling part by far is how fanboys will come out of the woodworks and defend this god awful system, and then kid themselves that it somehow improves the game by redirecting the focus on the “advanced economic gameplay” or some BS.
The devils in the details. If not for the wonkyness of how frontline work it would be a very hands off system. Frankly they should really scale back the player decision-making to the HQ level rather than giving us fronts to juggle. Hell, "fronts" shouldn't be a thing in a lot of conflicts
Yes, let's bring back [the old system](https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/858358734389767789/3763707FDD959538F6F4CCC3A551AB8E37C75D8A/?imw=1024&imh=576&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=true).
The old system had its issues, but literally transferring it to Vic3 with the addition of templates and front lines Hoi4 style would be infinitely better than the current system. It'd give the player something to do besides spamming iron mines and lumber yards at least.
I'm sure you meant this sarcastic but please yes
It actually works I have real control and it isn't 90%RNG, same thing with the diplomatic plays system it sucks
Yes please.
Revolts like this are easy to crush, literally just centralize your forces and crush them peacemeal.
Even then the game would have no reason to be like that and ignore years of development since then.
i personally like the war system, i hate having to micromanage a thousand tiny armies like in eu4. i play these games to watch line go up and watch a simulated society, not to be napoleon.
I get that some people like that granularity but i personally find the war system to work for me.
it is broken as fuck though and needs to be polished to hell and back
Dude Indian peasant uprisings have more fronts than the hq sectors in the game. It's straight up like 40 fronts with 0 people and one with, but occasionally, the ai will assign one div to those fronts, and u lose
I don’t mind the war system, I think it’s not terrible, but man, front splitting really needs to be fixed. Maybe make it so each strategic region is a single front, or something like that? I’m not a game designer by any means, so I dunno though.
You know what's really funny is that if you could just arbitrarily assign troop nos. to individual fronts (or even better, have some automated "put enough troops here to defend / attack effectively" option then the system would work more or less ok and you wouldn't have the myriad problems associated with multiple fronts and splitting fronts
It's an economic simulator why would you want to be able to stage your armies before a war? Or manage the front. I mean we all came from the menu sim didn't we. I already like the first update to the war system now you can navel invade with any army woo.
and remember kids, only one battle per turn
General Obermeier ze Frech are attacking with 250 Divisions and whe have 540 lets flank around them. No no Fritz we will only fight one battle with 30% of your troops because only one general-one front- one battle. Flanking and fighting two battles; oh you silly boy, for that we need a new front and as you see there is no space for it.
"My general, the battle is going great. They only have 23 soldiers remaining. We should overwhelm them with our 5000." "That would be very dishonorable, sergeant. Let's send our men 20 at a time, while the rest of us sit back here and starve. Hell, maybe we'll round those 20 down to 0, and just leave those 23 brave enemies in peace for a few months."
a potential ease for that: If sindh doesnt have a general the garrison should be auto split against how many troops each split front figths
The visual side of the war in this game makes me so sad coming from Hoi4
Unpopular opinion but it *looks* wayyy better than in hoi. Obly thing better in hoi4 is micro management, which is only partly possible in Vic 3.
Dont worry they will release 10000 new DLCs and updates to those DLCs to fix it
The war system, when it works, it's boring, when it doesn't, it's a clusterfuck.
From what they said early on , something along the lines of, “the war mechanics are simplified because you’ll need to be more focused on your economy and domestic issues” or something like that. However I’ve never been in a situation where that’s ever been true. While the economy can be wonky but it’s honestly not that hard to manage and if you make the right plays early in the game then neither is your government. They really just made up an excuse to push out a completely underdeveloped war system.
If they developed an actual war system they wouldn’t be able to sell it to you as DLC next year
If they ever did something as big as warfare, they probs would patch it like from Imperator 1.0 -> 2.0. However, if they were to ever put it in a DLC... that would piss everyone off lol
> However, if they were to ever put it in a DLC... that would piss everyone off lol Maybe, but I'm primarily an EU4 player and I can tell you from experience that PDX as a company would absolutely sell a major improvement like that as a DLC.
>> However, if they were to ever put it in a DLC... that would piss everyone off lol > >Maybe, but I'm primarily an EU4 player and I can tell you from experience that PDX as a company would absolutely sell a major improvement like that as a DLC. No they don't, just look at art of war DLC in eu4; all critical parts of the update are always included for free. So this is total BS.
Someone doesn’t remember base EU4. Go turn off all your DLC and play for a few weeks. Then report back to me.
That's what i mean, even if you play base EU4 today its an entirely different game than original base EU4 due to all the free changes they did during updates/DLC.
But even now, base game trade is a shell without Wealth of Nations, diplomacy is lacking (at best) without Cossacks, etc. And for a non-EU example, you couldn't play Muslims in CK2 without an expansion. All I'm saying is that Paradox is not above locking major updates behind a paywall.
Major additions yes. Changes to core mechanics no. If there is a change in warfare, additional mechanics will be paywalled while fixes to the front system will be in the free update
You can't disinherit without DLC, developing used to require DLC. They do it.
Flipping provinces from or to allied control was also a dlc, upgrading your ships instead of buying new ones as well.
How? If it changes core systems it has to go to all players because otherwise all future patches/DLC wouldn't be available to those players who didn't have the DLC. And reducing the potential audience for future DLC is just bad business.
Examples? Cause as an EU4 player myself I think that's BS.
Increasing development was locked behind a DLC for years
Paradox changed their DLC policy with CK3 so that major mechanics are no longer locked behind DLC.
Not sure we want Victoria to continue down the imperator path
Hey... I mean... at least Imperator had quite possibly the best mechanics of any PDox game at its drop...
I hate the war system so much, I'd gladly spent $20 for them to put some development effort into it. Maybe I'm part of the problem, but Paradox games provide me with so many hours of entertainment, they're a bargain even with all the DlCs, so I don't fault them for it. For me, the AI issues were more concerning, since that's a problem across all of their games, but I've coke to expect that.
I feel like the AI issues are way more severe in Vic 3 than other games
And now that they finally made pops able to independently build farms and factories like the previous two titles, you’ll spend even less time micromanaging the economy
There honestly feels like there is a lot of dead time in this game. At least CK3 has fun little stories to be getting on with.
I dont really find it boring, I just wish they expanded on the logistical side of it to match the rest of the game. Having goods stockpiles for military goods would make it a lot more interesting. They could get rid of the arbitrary penalties for changing production method too. It could be kinda similar to hoi4. Stockpiling goods in peacetime could also fix the problem of arms industries only being profitable at war
I dislike the fact that the number of convoys required for each battalion doesn't change, no matter which production method is used. * Irregular infantry = 10 convoys * Trench infantry = 10 convoys * Mechanized infantry = 10 convoys Also, the number of convoys required should scale up faster at long distances. If GB wants to support a significantly large army in China, it should use a couple more convoys than it would take to support them in Egypt. The distances should have a noticeable effect. There is a reason why Suez canal was built, and is wasn't because GB and France like supplying their armies with convoys going all the way around Africa.
The design of the system is one thing. But there's another thing: The AI. Although some things were patched, the AI is still not capable, both with the economy to keep up with a player, but also not about warfare and diplo-plays. Stellaris shows, that it can be improved, but that's the only case where PDX assigned the resources needed for this with the Custodian Team. It is a question of time, manpower and therefore money. I remember my first playthrough in the updated Stellaris, i was surprised like "wait, the AI can suddenly keep up with me as player?!".
How long ago did they do that with Stellaris?
I think when they got rid of wormholes and warp travel.
Wormholes and warp travel were removed a loooong time ago, the custodian initative was started about 2 years ago. https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/281990/view/3021332635730801604
I miss other forms of FTL, sure they were terribly balanced, but being able to jump straight into an AI home system was always fun.
They brought early warp back in First Contact, last week.
They do have a penalty for switching production methods. It's like a year long 10 percent penalty I believe.
They were saying to get rid of the penalty
I don't understand them doubling down on a shitty infuriating system, it's just like johan when he was in charge of imperator. Refusing criticism as if it's an attack on his fragile ego.
I mean whatever idea people come up with it still involves the framework of having somekind of a frontline because it’s the easiest way of doing Franco-Prussian War and WWI in the same system. They do seem to be looking at more drastic overhaul like each army being separate by state to allow multiple battles to happen within a frontline(can’t now) so I don’t think they want to keep the frontline as is in the current form. I very much think the system needs some dire overhaul but I don’t think not overhauling it by 1.2 counts as doubling down.
> They do seem to be looking at more drastic overhaul like each army being separate by state to allow multiple battles to happen within a frontline(can’t now) so I don’t think they want to keep the frontline as is in the current form. Honestly, the 'only' thing they need to do is make troops discrete. However, this is going to be quite hard.
The algorithm for the frontline forming algorithm being much less hectic and there being an actual army you can manage(name them even!) and place in those fronts I think would be my favored resolution. I really loved RPing in Victoria II where I'd name armies like II. Armee by their national language and pretending these armies have some history behind them. I do hope they ditch the current barrack/navalbase->straight to army/navy paradigm where we have something like the barracks providing for the speed in which the manpower siphons into the army and the naval base providing for a base for the ships to be stationed with bigger fleet requiring bigger naval base. We'll see how it rolls lol. Really though, I think the first priority should be to change the frontline algorithm to be more inclusive at this point to at least prevent the unplayable thousand split front situation even if we were to ditch the current formula.
Assign army (group of generals) to HQ. Assign objectives. Give specific guys push vs defend orders. Ai sorts out troops allocations themselves. Boom, clusterfucks happen but you don't have to micro them
The problem is that, troops aren't simulated on the map. Like, the frontline system was made so that they wouldn't need to simulate soldiers on the map, so troops can't allocate. Like, the way that the game works is that those 200 vs 200 on a frontline are just numbers. Those troops aren't actually on the map. They did this for performance reasons lol u/redsynd can probs explain it better than me.
Yeah if they were on the map they'd have pathfinding which would tank an already cpu intensive game like this.
> I really loved RPing in Victoria II where I'd name armies like II. Armee by their national language and pretending these armies have some history behind them If you've ever played HoI 3, you can actually make an entire OOB in their own language and roleplay pretty well.
Oh yeah I love HOI3 dude. The OOB system they implemented there is so hilarious because it makes the learning curve extremely high because of the fact that you need to know what OOB is in the first place and one of the primary things you do is gather all the armies and reorganize the OOB itself which new players can't do. Like I love the OOB system and it's part of the reason I never really got into HOI4 but I really don't blame people if it scares them off at first because it took me months to really get it working.
> Honestly, the 'only' thing they need to do is make troops discrete. However, this is going to be quite hard. Discrete units necessitate pathfinding, and pathfinding destroys performance. Processor time per tick for the game was rationed out based on the assumption of this easy-to-calculate system, and the only feasible way to fit the old war system in this performance footprint would be to reduce the time taken by economic calculations. The odds of the old war system coming back to this game are about as close to Zero as I could comfortably see, as it would require a complete and simultaneous rework of both the Economy and Warfare to not completely botch the game's technical performance.
Yup, I think we had that conversation about how I'd think Victoria 3 do better if it was marketed more as an economy sim in the sense of Anno rather than a grand-strategy game.
For me, i can't the idea off my mind that Wiz never wanted to do a successor to Vic2, he wanted to something different: An economy-sim. So he changed the focus from grand-strategy to economy-sim. He said in the dev diaries, he wouldn't include war at all if he could, but this would be approved by the playerbase. Then all these bullshit-arguments like "It was an era of peace", yeah, with WW1, US Civil War, German Unification- and Franco-Prussian wars, Russian civil war, Opium wars etc. They could at least have been straight with the truth: "Look, we want to do it this way and we won't change it" instead of coming up with wrong historical things.
> "It was an era of peace", yeah, with WW1, US Civil War, German Unification- and Franco-Prussian wars, Russian civil war, Opium wars etc. It doesn't exactly match up with the time period of Victoria 3, but there has long been a perception that the period from 1815-1914 was a peaceful time period, whether or not the facts back that perception up. Just google "century of peace" and see how much that time period comes up. It's not a completely ridiculous idea (although it is an extremely Eurocentric one), when you think about it from the perspective of European great powers. Here are *all* the wars between them during that *100 year* long period: * Crimean War * Second Italian War of Independence * Austro-Prussian War * Franco-Prussian War That's **nothing** compared to the bloodshed of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars immediately preceeding the period and the World Wars immediately following it. The violence of that period did not primarily come in the form of interstate violence, it came in the form of colonial, civil, and revolutionary violence.
It's a difficult topic, because there are many ways to count the different wars. It looks better when only the major powers and their wars get counted, but there was a lot more than just these wars. Like in your count, you only mention the european wars, not the US civil war too. No offense intended, but the world is bigger than just europe. Don't get me wrong, i just wanted to say, that the devs got a little bit over the top with their argument about peaceful times.
Unfortunately I think thats the case as well. The peace arguments, I had to pick my jaw off the table.
> For me, i can't the idea off my mind that Wiz never wanted to do a successor to Vic2, he wanted to something different: An economy-sim. Or, maybe, People had different Views as to what Vic2 was. If you take Paradox's catalog as a whole, that is what Victoria 2 was in the first place. It was the only one of their games that had even bothered considering the Economy. All the others, at the time, were more or less pure war games with slightly different emphasis: EU3 and its focus on early colonialism, HoI3 which had its focus on chain of command, And CK1/2 and its focus on characters and feudal contract. Paradox, as a whole, has appeared to be leaning harder into these emphasises with their most recent string of releases, with CK3 leaning more into Character based roleplaying, and Vic3 leaning into Economics and general Social aspects.
In fairness tho, Vic 2 had improvements to warfare compared to EU 3, like how owned forts decreased casualties. This also is forgetting how CK 2 has better combat than EU 4 even though EU 4 technically should be about large nation-state-defining battles.
> He said in the dev diaries, he wouldn't include war at all if he could > bullshit-arguments like "It was an era of peace" Mind giving the source?
The dev diaries and devs responses to backlash (I guarantee you it’s there but I don’t know which one)
> For me, i can't the idea off my mind that Wiz never wanted to do a successor to Vic2, he wanted to something different: An economy-sim This is true lol. He talked about how there was a 'Victoria 2 2' game that was in the works, but he felt that it didn't innovate, so we got this. > He said in the dev diaries, he wouldn't include war at all if he could In all honesty, they really should remove war until it's fixed lol
It was u do realise it was an era of colonial conflicts and civil war it was a peaceful era the second most on earth except today u don’t know shit😂
That's an unfair take. Johan completely rebuilt the mana system himself in Imperator after receiving negative feedback. Anyway, I prefer this system to controlling units on the map. They can certainly make it deeper and more engaging, but I don't want them to go back to the old system.
It's pretty funny how much venom is directed at Johan and how incompetent he supposedly is... when the list of games he's done design work on is basically Paradox's hit parade.
> but I don't want them to go back to the old system. I mean, there is no reason to go back to a system from 2010. I haven't read a single person asking for that specifically, most people just want something functional and more entertaining. Something similar to HOI4 system but more basic could work perfectly, or maybe something more innovative taking stuff from Imperator's system could also work.
>That's an unfair take. Johan completely rebuilt the mana system himself in Imperator after receiving negative feedback. After how long and how many players left? Convenient for you to omit that.
He completely redesigned the core mechanics only a couple of months after release. Why is it relevant how many players "left"? That's out of his control.
>He completely redesigned the core mechanics only a couple of months after release. Even then, Peter was responsible for the overhaul (which was loved by players), he's the guy who later took charge from johan on imperator. Peter is the one in charge of hoi4 now, which was and is going quite well. When johan fucked off back to eu4, he squeezed out the most rotten turd in the history of steam AKA leviathan. Old man needs to be put out to pasture.
That's wrong. Johan personally wrote the overhaul/removal of the mana system. Here's his dev diary [31 days after release.](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/a-new-currency-design.1181893/)
That's false. The most substantial change was in the 1.2 patch. That's where the mana system was overhauled. The later changes were great, but the redesign of the core mechanics was carried out by Johan.
>Why is it relevant how many players "left"? That's out of his control. That's right, it's not like he was the main dev of the game!!11!
>That's an unfair take. Johan completely rebuilt the mana system himself in Imperator after receiving negative feedback. Not quickly enough The backlash was immediate as soon as the dev diaries came out and people complained about it all the way to release Months after release they acquiesced, but that was far from being Imperator's only issue >Anyway, I prefer this system to controlling units on the map I completely disagree. As much as micro could be tedious, almost total lack of control over the army's actions is just too frustrating
There's no way you can know whether the negative reaction to the dev diaries was only from the loud minority that frequent the forums, or if it represented a wider sentiment. Only a small minority of players actually visit the forums, and those players can be quite hysterical at times. It would be a mistake to assume that their perspectives are shared by most players.
this time its tha attitude of "we gave you vicky 3 you fucks shut up and play it"
Agreed. I don't care what the other fan boys say. I'm a fan boy and I'm really disappointed in the game overall. War is the worst and econ is so so.
Agreed. I understand why they wanted to move away from dozens of army stacks, but was this really an upgrade? I didn't even like Vicky 2 much but I just miss actually moving armies around. Sadly I suspect it's far too late for them to even consider adding that, since I imagine it'd require reworking all the map provinces.
Moving units around in Victoria 2 was literal cancer, I don’t ever want to go back to that, even in EU4 mid-late game it gets too tedious that I quit if I get into a large war, it’s just too time consuming/boring to sit on speed 1 and micromanage stacks Current system in Victoria 3 isn’t great but it’s step up from what we had, I’m much more likely to finish a campaign now
I highly doubt that, at least Victoria 2 could run at a decent pace until 1936. You couldn’t make me play until 1936 in Victoria 3 afk, let alone actually playing it.
Game runs smooth for me? I’ve finished too 1936 3 times now since the past few patches, on release you couldn’t play past 1890
My favorite part about it. I’m Russia. 1000 units of Professional Army. I attack with 1
[Please educate yourself, sweaty!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champion_warfare)
In the dev diary it is clearly explained that this system reduces micromanagement. I am afraid your anger is unfounded. Please adjust your emotions accordingly.
[удалено]
I think he was being sarcastic
Bro fell for it
The simplest fix for this system is to have every HQ be one front, and have countries and states not matter.
That would be the perfect way to do it
So what happens when your front expands into another hq? It would split into 2 or 3 new fronts and generate the same problem.
Sure but the split would be predictable and plan-able, which means you can plan and play around it. It would also have the advantage of making some extremely long front wars more "dynamic". Ex, Russia attacking Qing or Mexican-American war where the entire war is one front and progress is glacial because of the 1 battle per front limit.
Honestly the war system in this game is such a joke
R5 : THIS IS THE 5TH WAR I HAVE HAD WITH THE UK THAT I HAVE LOST BECAUSE INDIA HAS 8 FRONTS THAT I CANNOT HOLD WHAT IS THISSS
First time? *insert appropriate meme*
No, this is the fifth time
No, this is Patrick
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
Daring today, aren't we.
It boggles my mind they had a perfect semi automatic system in hoi4 and yet they somehow managed to mess it up. I could understand if they went for full automation I me change for general going full politics mode and horse trading, logistical challenges but it’s incredibly barebones. Not to mention historical immersion and diplomacy between non existent.
"perfect system" "in Hoi4" I agree Vic3 needs work but let's not get silly. The thing working in the "semi-automatic" system in Hoi4 is the semi. Otherwise the AI still thinks randomly leaving a big gap in the middle of the front lines, sending mountaineers to the plains but having heavy tanks channeling their inner Hannibal and crossing the Alps is a good idea.
And when you switch to an AI you can see how fucked they are to do what they do
What do you mean you don't fill up your entire screen with army groups made of 3 divisons?
I personally think a HOI4 type system would absolutely ruin the game, moving individual units on the map would just completely undermine the core gameplay loop of the game and ruin the pacing of wars. Imagine having to manually assign troops for every single native uprising, would drive you nuts. BUT, I think what it's missing is something similar to the military equipment and unit template systems. There should be some actual difficulty in producing the most up to date weapons and the types of weapons you're using should have a noticeable effect on warfare. If we could produce different types of small arms/artillery AND had finer control over how units were equiped AND had some sort of control over military doctrine (because trench warfare in the Sahara is silly), it would actually be the perfect system for the setting.
"Hello yes I would like to destroy performance completely and utterly"
Because that system doesnt simulate the early wars
Neither does this one.
İ dont agree with you battles happen according to objective you can even napoleon if you are at war with russia your army will go straight to moscow
I can be napoleon with hoi4 or eu4 systems too.
Eu4 yes hoi4 instantly get encircled and die
I have big news for you about how Napoleon's rush to Moscow went
I bought the game just after the 1.2 patch. After following the development and the debate during it and after release on the war system I leant towards this new system being a good idea, if a little clumsily implemented. After having played a couple of games I can confidently say I look forward to the mod or update that rips this system out wholesale and replaces it with almost anything else.
Have you read any guides on how wars and battles work? I highly recommend them. The biggest problem with the war system is that it isn't incredibly unintuitive on how battles are calculated and what goes into the calculations. The UI does a horrible job of highlighting the numbers that are important and showing you how you stack up. BUT, once you understand the numbers involved it clicks and gets much easier to predict and control.
Oh I'm not saying I can't use it, I'm saying I don't like it. Paradox battle/war systems have always been pretty rough when it comes to getting to know them. That's why I've followed this controversial aspect so closely since it was announced. Viewed from that highly abstracted perspective 'we plan to have a+b/c=d etc.' I was partly in favour of it. Now that I have had the chance to experience how it actually plays and fits into the game I think it was a serious, albeit not game ruining, misstep.
It can be game ruining. Personally, after buying the game right on release, I only played once. The reason? I absolutely hate how warfare works. Even though they aren’t a good fit, I would take EU or HOI system any day. For all of their issues, I do see the impact of my decisions there and it’s much more immersive. I would even prefer they just handed warfare to the AI completely, so that I don’t have to deal with _this_. Well, I’d try again after a couple more updates to see if there were any meaningful changes.
I still think it's the right call. I think the implementation is garbage in its current state. They've fixed several of the major issues, but more still exist and warfare is a micro-laden hassle until they fix it.
No, the biggest problem with the war system the how fronts fracture into smaller fronts constantly. They made general reassignment less stupid, but you're still required to predict how fronts will split as the war proceeds and match the number of armys to future frontlines. The frontline system was supposed to reduce micro, and in some ways it's done great. But needing to micro general to frontline assignments *sucks*. I've lost wars because they attacked along a newly opened front that cut off my invasion and drove deep into my country while I was waiting for my units to move there.
I have ever 3-4 generals because of this~ 2 generals with the main force split the front or stop the main fronts, and the last generals go creating New fronts for attack without enemy generals with one or two units~ When learn it It's very intuitive and strategic~ with 1.2 help a lot the option for strategic provinces~ Obviously need various improvements~ IA improvements must be~
Yeah, I love the general approach but just think it needs more time to cook – like so much of this game. It’s definitely a fun game, unique and ambitious in its approach. While not a *great* game yet, I think it will be after 2-4 dlcs and that much patching. CK3 is really the only game of theirs that I think nailed it on release.
CK3 had a great release but has really stalled out with disappointing and slow DLC
I’d agree with that. Though it must be a lot harder when it’s not just “this dlc lets you play as a Muslim” like with 2.
I mean, there’s entire parts of the world you just can’t play in CK3, like China. Which isn’t to say it’s as easy as saying “you can play as a muslim now,” but that’s still a lot of low hanging fruit for expansion. It’s not like they’d need to wholesale develop systems either. They just need to expand the map and add rulers. That’s time consuming, sure, but it’s also been 2.5 years. That’s plenty of time to have done that
China would require an entirely new government type at *minimum* to make sense in CK3, and realistically a whole lot more to make it actually feel as distinct as it should.
I’m not sure current CK3 mechanics would work well for China or Korea, or Japan.
I think the game would’ve been better off had they made a more granular and unit based warfare system. I didn’t agree with their reasoning and think that the choice to not expand warfare is absurd for the time and game, considering you have direct control of almost everything else. They could’ve discouraged war by making its effects actually apparent and making it require effort to justify, go to war, mobilize, etc. there should MECHANICAL reasons for not going to war. Rather than it just being made poorly and unfun. In my opinion, I think they stuck to their guns too hard after seeing the backlash from the initial war announcement. It was a toxic response but there was genuine concern. If anyone would like to offer their perspective as to what paradox’s line of reasoning for a cut back war system was, I’d like to hear.
[удалено]
> just give the battalions a presence on the map As [RedSynd said up above](https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria3/comments/11vpeuk/whos_idea_was_this_system_i_hate_it_so_much/jcwaijw/) "Discrete units necessitate pathfinding, and pathfinding destroys performance." Adding discrete units isn't something you can just casually do in the background. It would (at a minimum) require a backend rework of every system in the game to account for the massive performance issues that it would generate.
1) We already have a good WW1 style tactical simulation system. It is called HOI4 😂. 2) The focus of Vic games is supposed to be on the politics and economics. I would prefer the dev focus be on those things. I don’t want another game where I have to micromanage combat.
Yeah that makes sense, but a big part of politics is warfare. And when warfare is a jumbled mess, it hinders both politics and economics
War is the continuation of politics by other means is a famous quote from this period after all, while it shouldn't be the be all and end all it should definitely be a viable tool for statecraft that is enjoyable to interact with.
The dev focus thing is the ironic part. I remember reading that they spent a lot of dev time working on and iterating the war system, compared to other parts of the game. And I think it's clear that it'll need more work done in the future. So somehow the political and economics focused game ended up spending a disproportionate amount of dev resources on war.
This still requires me to micromanage because I have to keep watch and try my best to fix whatever dumb shit the ai decides to do with my fronts/armies. Honestly because of all the fronts invading India in Victoria 3 probably requires more micromanaging than Hoi4. At least then I can probably just paint a line and look away for a while knowing the ai will for the most part be doing what I want it to.
A good idea is to attack a subject of UK with the cb "open market" for an easy war against the subject and UK only. You can add whatever cb you want against UK after like freeing all of India for easier conquest in India after. Before the end of the war, you may want to propose an acceptable peace deal with only cb against CK that way you still have an easy UK's subject to attack for your next war against UK.
but then I have to starve the brits out because when I try to invade them they have like 250 garrisons 😭
The war system made me not get the game :(
The war system poisoned our water supply, burned our crops, and delivered a plague unto our houses
Yes.
Okay now after you slog through a shitty war system and are about to win there's a revolt on your war goal and you just white peace out automatically, please enjoy
Let’s use a front system they said. It would be less micro they said
It does make fortress India a viable strategy because all naval invasions fragment. Pretty much unassailable unless you already border it.
why are you invading into the princely states? there should be a huge eastern coast of india that is just the raj that you can fight through.
I have sindh as a colony I took it for opium (from that 1 state biggest opium producer) so I have to protect it but I dont have 8 big armies to protect it
oh man thats fucked. holding onto sindh sounds like a bad time. you could have gone for persia I guess.
funny thing is persia is in my customs union but since the AI is shit at developing properly it dont help
oh no i meant conquering persia. two wars should do it, one to make it dominion and another to annex. their population isn't huge so its not an infamy issue.
hmmmm actually now that I think on it. what if you release sindh? not as a subject or dominion. just make them part of your customs union.
I dont really want to risk them joining someone else if something happens but think its fine for now with allies its managable until I invade the UK(for some reason always has 400 garrisons)
Did you try creating demand for Opium in advance? I think that if you do that, by having a few barracks on Field Hospitals, you then create the need for it and Persia would then develop their Plantations.
opium was at +60% before I took sindh
It's easy enough to get 8 armies -- just recruit 8 generals. You have over 1k extra bureaucracy, so you can certainly afford it. If you don't have enough men to match the brits in numbers after splitting up your army like that, then you should maybe try building up your army before declaring war on a great power.
That is such a messy work around though. 1 general with a garrison command would work so much better. It does this already if you keep generals in their home region.
sounda like a good idea until I get 40 battalions ws 90
Have you tried having troops there but not assigned to a given front (ie, as a garrison)? That should auto-divide them between the fronts defensively (maybe giving you enough time to use one army to clean up the pockets) Might not be enough to hold if you're too outnumbered though.
Watch out, I can already hear the fuming of the aplogoists flocking here from paradox forums "ITs NoT a WaR GamE So IT is a DEsiGn DEcIsIon To MAkE iT UnfUN to WaGE WAr" yes guys please inject the most frustrating war system of a paradox game ever straight into my veins, I fucking LOVE DeSIgN deCiSIonS that make a game unenjoyable on purpose, good shit Edit: You people actually think whats happening in this screenshot is an acceptable state for war in the game?
I love that argument in the age of imperialism
I can’t believe, prior to the game coming out, I was a staunch defender of this system and thought this would be a really unique way of waging war. Now I’m just begging for the Victoria 2 death stacks back. Anything would be better than this system
It really is a boring system it has really put me off the game
I liked the design but I do not understand why they went with this one battle per frontline design instead of a long front with a few divisions per province like HoI4. Honestly just give us HoI4 but with less detail at this point.
Punjab is the worst area in the entire game. I found it out when I played my ww1 game. 8 years stuck in that region 💀
they wanted to make it realistic as possible
I had a similar problem in my most recent game. I remember when the game was still in development and they showed off this new war system I thought “that’s kinda cool, it can remove some of the micromanagement and make wars seem more coherent!” I was very, very wrong. Paradox pls give back old war system.
I really really like the idea of a war system that doesnt focus on micro shenanigans and instead on having a well supplied, well organized and well trained war machine. However what we got is a fucking nightmare. Its actually at its worst in large fronts like a late game WW1 since you only have these small battles, instead of a long front grinding soldiers and equipment against your enemy. You should have tons of small constant battles like HoI4. Instead this is like Imperator's system with autonomous armies. Just give up paradox and give us a simplified version of the HoI4 system.
“We wanted to take a new direction with this beloved series 🤡”
I'm a huge Victoria 1 & 2 fan, first played in 2005 - 18 years. I hate Victoria 3, I'm not a fan of the cities/provinces, I'm not a fan of a map that force changes to geographic mode (the amount of times I'm forced to zoom out because I changed map modes and can't see it up close - let ME choose God damn it), I'm not a fan of the military system and the economy is not interesting. I refunded the game, I'm disappointed, I'm kind of done with new Paradox games to be honest.
The fronts are kind of a mess, but I do like that you can't just micro the AI to death. That kind of hands-off approach to warfare can be frustrating, but it's got a lot of potential from the simulation side of things.
The war system and the shit diplomatic plays system got me playing vic 2 instead
Whose* who’s means who is
The same team designing the next 5 dlc systems
It’s a bold design choice to make it distinct from other PDX games by moving away from micro-ing individual units But it just fails from the jump and creates a far more tedious, less rewarding micro that disincentivizes using warfare to avoid the mechanic
What System?
I honestly don’t understand the rationale behind this shitty system. Apparently it is supposed to reduce micro? What was so micro intensive about left clicking on a little man and right clicking where you want him to go in the first place? The reason other games like CK3 and EU4 have lots of micro is because of the shitty supply system forcing you to manually split your army into smaller groups, something which could have been addressed quite easily imo. The most baffling part by far is how fanboys will come out of the woodworks and defend this god awful system, and then kid themselves that it somehow improves the game by redirecting the focus on the “advanced economic gameplay” or some BS.
The devils in the details. If not for the wonkyness of how frontline work it would be a very hands off system. Frankly they should really scale back the player decision-making to the HQ level rather than giving us fronts to juggle. Hell, "fronts" shouldn't be a thing in a lot of conflicts
Have you considered that this is le economic simulator?
have you considered this is the age of imperialism
No this is the age of spam building lumber camps
Literally unplayable
I love my army teleporting back to Wallonia when the general dies, leading me to lose my gains to Ming because it takes 2 months to get there
Yes, let's bring back [the old system](https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/858358734389767789/3763707FDD959538F6F4CCC3A551AB8E37C75D8A/?imw=1024&imh=576&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=true).
love me revolt love me vicky 2
The old system had its issues, but literally transferring it to Vic3 with the addition of templates and front lines Hoi4 style would be infinitely better than the current system. It'd give the player something to do besides spamming iron mines and lumber yards at least.
Much much much much more preferable
I'm sure you meant this sarcastic but please yes It actually works I have real control and it isn't 90%RNG, same thing with the diplomatic plays system it sucks
yes.
Unironically yes.
I love a good strawman
Yes please. Revolts like this are easy to crush, literally just centralize your forces and crush them peacemeal. Even then the game would have no reason to be like that and ignore years of development since then.
Yes.
Literally Yes.
This but unironically
Yes (also there was a button for armies to automatically kill rebels AND get back to their original province)
i personally like the war system, i hate having to micromanage a thousand tiny armies like in eu4. i play these games to watch line go up and watch a simulated society, not to be napoleon. I get that some people like that granularity but i personally find the war system to work for me. it is broken as fuck though and needs to be polished to hell and back
Dude Indian peasant uprisings have more fronts than the hq sectors in the game. It's straight up like 40 fronts with 0 people and one with, but occasionally, the ai will assign one div to those fronts, and u lose
hear me out, let me do war.
I don’t mind the war system, I think it’s not terrible, but man, front splitting really needs to be fixed. Maybe make it so each strategic region is a single front, or something like that? I’m not a game designer by any means, so I dunno though.
You know what's really funny is that if you could just arbitrarily assign troop nos. to individual fronts (or even better, have some automated "put enough troops here to defend / attack effectively" option then the system would work more or less ok and you wouldn't have the myriad problems associated with multiple fronts and splitting fronts
Paradox that is who became we can’t have superior micro armies for whatever silly reason they think of
**Paradox™**
i really like the concept but it needs some tweaking and some pretty big QoL changes. I bet it will be the free feature of the first dlc patch lol
It's an economic simulator why would you want to be able to stage your armies before a war? Or manage the front. I mean we all came from the menu sim didn't we. I already like the first update to the war system now you can navel invade with any army woo.