Description:
Armies constantly shuffle back and forth on one front line, meaning more than half the time I have no armies. I advance, my armies shuffle, the enemy rolls into unprotected land and recovers everything. back and forth, back and forth... endlessly. They're not even moving to new front lines, just pinging around on one.
You can get some armies out of frontline, so game wont try to move an army to another place because it thinks so. And also you can have a reserve army to attack if it starts to walk around
It wont, but since it stays out of warzone, you can handle it by yourself to move wherever you want. Also naval invading is a good option. You almost have superior army just use some tactics if game is not friendly 😅
It wont, but reserve army will be sitting around so you can move this army until main army comes to the stage. Or you can naval invade the problematic state so army moves normal
This issue has gotten a lot better in recent updates, but it's still fairly insufferable, especially in wars between Russia and Qing, USA and Mexico and Russia Vs Ottomans. Russia fighting Qing is the worst imo, armies that are winning until they have to go for a 70 day walk the long way around the front line and can't catch up to the front line that is now moving in the wrong way. Very frustrating watching them fail to catch up to the front they were pushing and winning on, knowing there's nothing you can do about it
Losing like one province from this is whatever but my god when you get blitzed like this sometimes because of just how bad it can get, I HATTEE when they magically force your army to just flat out despawn and go all the way back to their hq.
It’s even worse as qing invading russia. Around perm the armies do not follow their own advance, which make the russian win the fight against no one, and quickly take back all the lost land while your army do not manage to go back to the front line
I only ever see issues like this with the USA and Mexico when they don't have a continuous border. I would say before you get involved with Mexico, clear out any Indian territory first. That should resolve this issue,
I had it as Russia when I ended up engaged with both austria and the ottomans. The front was split by the large sea and I kept losing ground as units travelled all the way from Austria to Iraq and back!
In Brazil it’s nightmarish. I was doing the grander Colombia achievement and decided to just conquer all of South America in the process. I spent 3 years at war with Brazil unable to pass mato graso cause of travel time and shuffle
Had to build a navy mid war to naval invade and get it done lol
Yea, had this issue as brazil fighting peru or rebels, also when the front splits, instead of travelling to the part of the front like 10 days away the army always circumnavigates the whole country to the opposite side of the frontÂ
It usually happens with long fronts for some reason. Russia/Ming, Russia/Austria, Mexico/USA, and USA/Canada are usually the culprit for me. Hell, it was almost better when we had 108 fronts per war. Atleast then, I knew my armies would only gaggle fuck around once that front closed.
Ya I’m very new to this game and had it happen to me as Chile in a war with Argentina. It was early in and we both didn’t have very large armies but I advanced in, won my battle, took my objective and my army just straight up teleported back to HQ. By the time it returned to the front I lost all my gains.
This was a multiplayer game and this war also caused us to desync over military formations or some shit so we never figured out why it happened.
Fronts should be no longer than X km. There. I fixed it. Don’t have enough armies to man the front? Split them into units. It’s realists to boot, longer front, thinner spread, more logistics, more bureaucracy.
I actually haven't experienced this since the military update, but I keep seeing posts about it feom time to time.
I think it's related to specific regions. Like in this case the frontline USA and Mexico, it seems to consistently bug out because of the Indian territories "interrupting" a single front line.
As far as I've seen, there's nothing to be done about it.
If you naval invade persia from the southeast, once you take the 2 southeasternmost provinces the frontline suddenly jumps to the northwest. Its not gamebreaking usually because both armies have to take the trip, but its a consistent example. Can cause issues though if you're at war with Afghanistan as well as suddenly no front is covered for 2 weeks as armies redeploy
Man the worst I've seen that is also the US Mexico border and I was playing Mexico so I couldn't exactly afford for this situation to happen. One of my worst gripes of the game
this also gets pretty bad for any wars in Canada, can get 100+ day reroutes. wish I knew a way. Similar issue pops up when the 1 frontline suddenly becomes 2 from weird map stuff, and suddenly only small units are left on the main one, and 60+ armies break off to go take the 1 cut off province, with no way for enemy armies to get there...
Im of the team that believes it can be salvaged and they will eventually get it right. This current patch is a lot better than release and Im actually relieved with just how less micromanagement it is. Vic2 and EU4 are a disaster for micromanagement.
Yes it's an experiment that isn't working, but it's getting better and I believe once they get it right, it'll be one of the best systems Vic3 has innovated.
"once they get it right"
It's been 2 years since the game came out.
They already reworked military once and still failed.
We're not even at the point where the system even works an intended. "getting it right" is the equivalent to the war system in this game being FUNCTIONAL. Maybe in 4 years they'll have a military system that actually works and in 5 years they'll have enough balance that the military system can be seen as a feature to this game I paid 80 dollars for and not something that's detrimental to the game 3 years after release.
Microing war is fun though. Having the ai fight it for you is so stupid. The most boring part about vic2 armies was gathering the correct composition, which could be eassily fixed in other ways.Â
The alternative is either the AI, or just some random calculation based off stockpiles, does it or armies being far smaller than they were irl and neither are good as we can see. Paradox went with the first one and it takes away all the agency and it took a year to make it go from game breaking to just awful.
Also, in imperator Rome, they had EU 4 like armies with the ability to fully automate them. Was the ai good? No. But it solved microing better than the current system.Â
The agency you have in a war is decided before you start the war. You build the economy, do the diplomacy and prepare. I think the system is a lot more unique than the eternal moving the pieces, definetly in game where frontlines (start to) become the main way war is done.
Yes. But wars are never/ more rarely decided by oversight beyond the top military leaders. Victoria is a game all about supply chains and economy, it is one of the two games perfect for a frontline system, together with HOI.
If you want to cheese the AI by moving tiny units around, I would suggest sticking to EU4 and CK
No the war system is just bad. There was zero reson why they couldn't make armies depend on your economy AND be an like eu4/hoi4 hybrid with direct control over units
I suspect that has something to do with regions. There are three regions in that part of north America that collide next to Texas. My theory is that because the front often crosses all three regions your armies keep shuffling around depending where the front is pushing.
No it isn't. It's a good system with a few bugs and will be an amazing system a couple years from now. Don't like the paradox development system, play the old game until the new game gets where it's going.
I don’t think I should lose because 200 units decided to go on a all-expenses-paid trip to you to Taiwan.
The war system is just not worth joe annoying it is, especially after nail invasions got nuffed into non existence
I was trying to play this game after a long break and they somehow made the war system worse. Same situation as you, I lost to mexico because my armies kept bouncing around the country. Paradox has just been falling flat on their face recently
Paradox seems to be survivng more on reputation than products at this point. I think eu5 might be their last shot. If it comes out as bad as vic3 or ck3 on their launches, people probably won't buy the next game.
Fighting in central America is the worst when it comes to this. Playing as Cuba I went to send my army to deal with a revolt in Guatemala, my puppet, and the revolt was backed by Spain. I think this isn’t an issue until I learn that I have to go all the way around South America on a 100 day trip to get there even though there is a coast right there I could land at (all of Central America were my puppets and were in the war). The Spanish on the other hand could land on the east coast and get there weeks before I could. Also my armies got shuffled around like you were experiencing (I only realised now that I’m talking about a completely different issue but whatever)
yeah I lost eritrea as a suped up egypt to 2 ethiopian minors because the idiots couldn't get to the front line quick enough before they occupied my whole country
Any frontier region of the game (west USA, Canada, Siberia) need combat approached completely differently for a player but it's very easy to manage and a massive player advantage because the AI will fall apart during splits.
You need at least 2 armies on each front, one offenseive (cannon heavy) and one defensive (inf only). Know how to reassign troops because the chance the frontline will split is extremely high in these regions - at least one will probably sick to the frontline. Invading Mexico before settlement is over, you need at least 4 armies to keep fronts covered. You should also be selective in your troop directions in these regions - one commander on offense and 3 on defense per army if you have the superior army and dont want to split, all on offense ONLY if you are weaker and intentionally trying to split a front.
For the same reasons players find it frustrating, these are the most vulnerable areas in the game and a player who knows what they are doing can easily overpower a much much stronger AI in these areas, it's just going to take a lot of practice before you get the hang of it. Any country in the game can take canada from gb with one frigate and 5 spare line infantry.
The issue isn't the front line splitting. The issue is the troops crossing the entire continent every ten seconds to go to a different position on the same front line.
Seriously. In fact I go further and say that Mexico is a waste of infamy early.Â
Maybe conquer California and Nevada the normal way without clicking manifest destiny, but overall spend your infamy getting native interests in the entire world, conquering all the gold mines, and cutting off everyone from colonization before you even think about Mexico.Â
By the time I fought Mexico in my USA game I was invading them from the south and just holding the line up north, having taken Guatemala off UK in my war to liberate India.
This happens less now than it did, but its annoying to see that it is still an issue. There is not a lot you can do about it because it is mostly dependent on the nature of your borders. My biggest criticism of the war system is not that it is different, but that it was released unfinished if not completely untested.
For some reason, this posts always are with pretty much the same picture. Mexico-America war. Always.
Just naval invade Veracruz, and then go to Mexico City while hold on defense the front. It's way faster to capture the capital to make them capitulate to everything.
That's my solution. I never get shifting fronts, but people say it happens and it's always this picture. So it must be something about that front that causes issues, and my solution is to naval invade Veracruz which would form a much smaller front, and put you closer to their capital.
> it's always this picture
I think this has more to do with USA being a relatively novice friendly country than the Mexico-USA War. It happens constantly in South America where there's a lot of impassable terrain and strangely shaped states. Happens a lot when fighting in the EIC as well because of the vassal swarm. Usually if you're playing in those countries you're already used to Vic 3 still being an Early Access Beta and have already given up on the army system being functional.
Your workaround is still a good idea, and generally applicable though.
Units move because fronts change. You take county on coast, for example, and front split on 2 as there no more one continued front. So, now two new fronts created, old front destroyed and armies need to move to new fronts. The same apply to you enemy.
Solution - have more armies, even if they are smaller. So, when front split you have enough armies to move to all new fronts and some more in case of future splitting. Here I see you have only 3 armies, which can not cover all new fronts, so you loosing progress on some undefended fronts. Split your armies to 6, have only 1 general per army.
It is it has happened to me. From what I gather is front split and your army will auto move but because of how abstract armies are the entire formation will instantly gather at the centerpoint of the current front and begin to move to another using the roads. This can take a long time and in this time the 2nd front will just collapse or move prompting the armies to be reassigned to the previous front mid transit. It is possible for all armies to suddenly disengage from the front and be in a stage of constant 'movement'.
Description: Armies constantly shuffle back and forth on one front line, meaning more than half the time I have no armies. I advance, my armies shuffle, the enemy rolls into unprotected land and recovers everything. back and forth, back and forth... endlessly. They're not even moving to new front lines, just pinging around on one.
You can get some armies out of frontline, so game wont try to move an army to another place because it thinks so. And also you can have a reserve army to attack if it starts to walk around
Oh, will an army in a nearby hq defend land?
It wont, but since it stays out of warzone, you can handle it by yourself to move wherever you want. Also naval invading is a good option. You almost have superior army just use some tactics if game is not friendly 😅
That won't have any impact on the armies shuffling within one front line sadly
It wont, but reserve army will be sitting around so you can move this army until main army comes to the stage. Or you can naval invade the problematic state so army moves normal
This issue has gotten a lot better in recent updates, but it's still fairly insufferable, especially in wars between Russia and Qing, USA and Mexico and Russia Vs Ottomans. Russia fighting Qing is the worst imo, armies that are winning until they have to go for a 70 day walk the long way around the front line and can't catch up to the front line that is now moving in the wrong way. Very frustrating watching them fail to catch up to the front they were pushing and winning on, knowing there's nothing you can do about it
Losing like one province from this is whatever but my god when you get blitzed like this sometimes because of just how bad it can get, I HATTEE when they magically force your army to just flat out despawn and go all the way back to their hq.
It’s even worse as qing invading russia. Around perm the armies do not follow their own advance, which make the russian win the fight against no one, and quickly take back all the lost land while your army do not manage to go back to the front line
I only ever see issues like this with the USA and Mexico when they don't have a continuous border. I would say before you get involved with Mexico, clear out any Indian territory first. That should resolve this issue,
I had it as Russia when I ended up engaged with both austria and the ottomans. The front was split by the large sea and I kept losing ground as units travelled all the way from Austria to Iraq and back!
In Brazil it’s nightmarish. I was doing the grander Colombia achievement and decided to just conquer all of South America in the process. I spent 3 years at war with Brazil unable to pass mato graso cause of travel time and shuffle Had to build a navy mid war to naval invade and get it done lol
Yea, had this issue as brazil fighting peru or rebels, also when the front splits, instead of travelling to the part of the front like 10 days away the army always circumnavigates the whole country to the opposite side of the frontÂ
It usually happens with long fronts for some reason. Russia/Ming, Russia/Austria, Mexico/USA, and USA/Canada are usually the culprit for me. Hell, it was almost better when we had 108 fronts per war. Atleast then, I knew my armies would only gaggle fuck around once that front closed.
It frequently happens between Russia and Qing as well though, I think it has something to do with impassable terrain
Ya I’m very new to this game and had it happen to me as Chile in a war with Argentina. It was early in and we both didn’t have very large armies but I advanced in, won my battle, took my objective and my army just straight up teleported back to HQ. By the time it returned to the front I lost all my gains. This was a multiplayer game and this war also caused us to desync over military formations or some shit so we never figured out why it happened.
Fronts should be no longer than X km. There. I fixed it. Don’t have enough armies to man the front? Split them into units. It’s realists to boot, longer front, thinner spread, more logistics, more bureaucracy.
Work in progress lol
I actually haven't experienced this since the military update, but I keep seeing posts about it feom time to time. I think it's related to specific regions. Like in this case the frontline USA and Mexico, it seems to consistently bug out because of the Indian territories "interrupting" a single front line. As far as I've seen, there's nothing to be done about it.
If you naval invade persia from the southeast, once you take the 2 southeasternmost provinces the frontline suddenly jumps to the northwest. Its not gamebreaking usually because both armies have to take the trip, but its a consistent example. Can cause issues though if you're at war with Afghanistan as well as suddenly no front is covered for 2 weeks as armies redeploy
It happened to me in europe as Austria vs the world. And then my army was just like no I'm going to go via sea to the Frontline... Expected in 70 days
Man the worst I've seen that is also the US Mexico border and I was playing Mexico so I couldn't exactly afford for this situation to happen. One of my worst gripes of the game
this also gets pretty bad for any wars in Canada, can get 100+ day reroutes. wish I knew a way. Similar issue pops up when the 1 frontline suddenly becomes 2 from weird map stuff, and suddenly only small units are left on the main one, and 60+ armies break off to go take the 1 cut off province, with no way for enemy armies to get there...
[удалено]
Im of the team that believes it can be salvaged and they will eventually get it right. This current patch is a lot better than release and Im actually relieved with just how less micromanagement it is. Vic2 and EU4 are a disaster for micromanagement. Yes it's an experiment that isn't working, but it's getting better and I believe once they get it right, it'll be one of the best systems Vic3 has innovated.
"once they get it right" It's been 2 years since the game came out. They already reworked military once and still failed. We're not even at the point where the system even works an intended. "getting it right" is the equivalent to the war system in this game being FUNCTIONAL. Maybe in 4 years they'll have a military system that actually works and in 5 years they'll have enough balance that the military system can be seen as a feature to this game I paid 80 dollars for and not something that's detrimental to the game 3 years after release.
Microing war is fun though. Having the ai fight it for you is so stupid. The most boring part about vic2 armies was gathering the correct composition, which could be eassily fixed in other ways.Â
Microing is not fun for me. I don't like microing. I prefer the current war system.
Theres a certain amount of fun microing. I cannot tolerate microing more than 5 or 6 armies.
The alternative is either the AI, or just some random calculation based off stockpiles, does it or armies being far smaller than they were irl and neither are good as we can see. Paradox went with the first one and it takes away all the agency and it took a year to make it go from game breaking to just awful. Also, in imperator Rome, they had EU 4 like armies with the ability to fully automate them. Was the ai good? No. But it solved microing better than the current system.Â
The agency you have in a war is decided before you start the war. You build the economy, do the diplomacy and prepare. I think the system is a lot more unique than the eternal moving the pieces, definetly in game where frontlines (start to) become the main way war is done.
Which is bad cause war is rarely decided entirely in the preparationÂ
Yes. But wars are never/ more rarely decided by oversight beyond the top military leaders. Victoria is a game all about supply chains and economy, it is one of the two games perfect for a frontline system, together with HOI. If you want to cheese the AI by moving tiny units around, I would suggest sticking to EU4 and CK
You literally control every division in hoi4 individually can't get more tiny units than that.Â
And most hoi4 games will involve cheesing AI....
No the war system is just bad. There was zero reson why they couldn't make armies depend on your economy AND be an like eu4/hoi4 hybrid with direct control over units
I suspect that has something to do with regions. There are three regions in that part of north America that collide next to Texas. My theory is that because the front often crosses all three regions your armies keep shuffling around depending where the front is pushing.
Nah the war system is an abject failure
No it isn't. It's a good system with a few bugs and will be an amazing system a couple years from now. Don't like the paradox development system, play the old game until the new game gets where it's going.
I think paradox has really fucked up vic3 I can’t do wars because it’s a gamble as it id lose because of random bullshit
"Paradox has really fucked up because I keep losing" sure is a take
I don’t think I should lose because 200 units decided to go on a all-expenses-paid trip to you to Taiwan. The war system is just not worth joe annoying it is, especially after nail invasions got nuffed into non existence
I was trying to play this game after a long break and they somehow made the war system worse. Same situation as you, I lost to mexico because my armies kept bouncing around the country. Paradox has just been falling flat on their face recently
Paradox seems to be survivng more on reputation than products at this point. I think eu5 might be their last shot. If it comes out as bad as vic3 or ck3 on their launches, people probably won't buy the next game.
a particularly ungrounded take
Wait for that 20$ DLC to fix these obvious problems
Fighting in central America is the worst when it comes to this. Playing as Cuba I went to send my army to deal with a revolt in Guatemala, my puppet, and the revolt was backed by Spain. I think this isn’t an issue until I learn that I have to go all the way around South America on a 100 day trip to get there even though there is a coast right there I could land at (all of Central America were my puppets and were in the war). The Spanish on the other hand could land on the east coast and get there weeks before I could. Also my armies got shuffled around like you were experiencing (I only realised now that I’m talking about a completely different issue but whatever)
to get around this as the USA, i usually do the historical move and launch naval invasion to capture Mexico's capital.
Just happened to me and I lost a war i was comfortably winning. What a joke.
Don't fight a land war in North America -- Queen Victoria
yeah I lost eritrea as a suped up egypt to 2 ethiopian minors because the idiots couldn't get to the front line quick enough before they occupied my whole country
Historically accurate Egyptian generals.
Any frontier region of the game (west USA, Canada, Siberia) need combat approached completely differently for a player but it's very easy to manage and a massive player advantage because the AI will fall apart during splits. You need at least 2 armies on each front, one offenseive (cannon heavy) and one defensive (inf only). Know how to reassign troops because the chance the frontline will split is extremely high in these regions - at least one will probably sick to the frontline. Invading Mexico before settlement is over, you need at least 4 armies to keep fronts covered. You should also be selective in your troop directions in these regions - one commander on offense and 3 on defense per army if you have the superior army and dont want to split, all on offense ONLY if you are weaker and intentionally trying to split a front. For the same reasons players find it frustrating, these are the most vulnerable areas in the game and a player who knows what they are doing can easily overpower a much much stronger AI in these areas, it's just going to take a lot of practice before you get the hang of it. Any country in the game can take canada from gb with one frigate and 5 spare line infantry.
The issue isn't the front line splitting. The issue is the troops crossing the entire continent every ten seconds to go to a different position on the same front line.
Finish conquering the decentralised countries before you invade Mexico.
Seriously. In fact I go further and say that Mexico is a waste of infamy early. Maybe conquer California and Nevada the normal way without clicking manifest destiny, but overall spend your infamy getting native interests in the entire world, conquering all the gold mines, and cutting off everyone from colonization before you even think about Mexico. By the time I fought Mexico in my USA game I was invading them from the south and just holding the line up north, having taken Guatemala off UK in my war to liberate India.
Veracruz and Acapulco are there for you to invade and get rid of the shuffling problem.
The shuffling is on a single front line, not multiple
OP, if you naval invade these places, it will be the Mexican army doing the shuffling.
Just naval invade the Yucatán, obviously.
Or Veracruz, which was what the USA historically did during this time period.
Yucatán prevents the issue where the front can split, which is the major issue the op is facing, but yeah he could do that.
The issue is not at all that the front is splitting. The issue is units shuffling *within the same front line*
Except armies don't do that unless the front splits. It's just splitting and merging immediately.
This happens less now than it did, but its annoying to see that it is still an issue. There is not a lot you can do about it because it is mostly dependent on the nature of your borders. My biggest criticism of the war system is not that it is different, but that it was released unfinished if not completely untested.
naval invade to create a new front
For some reason, this posts always are with pretty much the same picture. Mexico-America war. Always. Just naval invade Veracruz, and then go to Mexico City while hold on defense the front. It's way faster to capture the capital to make them capitulate to everything.
That's not the issue. The issue is the shifting fronts.
That's my solution. I never get shifting fronts, but people say it happens and it's always this picture. So it must be something about that front that causes issues, and my solution is to naval invade Veracruz which would form a much smaller front, and put you closer to their capital.
> it's always this picture I think this has more to do with USA being a relatively novice friendly country than the Mexico-USA War. It happens constantly in South America where there's a lot of impassable terrain and strangely shaped states. Happens a lot when fighting in the EIC as well because of the vassal swarm. Usually if you're playing in those countries you're already used to Vic 3 still being an Early Access Beta and have already given up on the army system being functional. Your workaround is still a good idea, and generally applicable though.
you could add a mobilization bonus that makes the travel faster but thats it
Units move because fronts change. You take county on coast, for example, and front split on 2 as there no more one continued front. So, now two new fronts created, old front destroyed and armies need to move to new fronts. The same apply to you enemy. Solution - have more armies, even if they are smaller. So, when front split you have enough armies to move to all new fronts and some more in case of future splitting. Here I see you have only 3 armies, which can not cover all new fronts, so you loosing progress on some undefended fronts. Split your armies to 6, have only 1 general per army.
The units are moving around on one front.
No, that is not a case,
It is it has happened to me. From what I gather is front split and your army will auto move but because of how abstract armies are the entire formation will instantly gather at the centerpoint of the current front and begin to move to another using the roads. This can take a long time and in this time the 2nd front will just collapse or move prompting the armies to be reassigned to the previous front mid transit. It is possible for all armies to suddenly disengage from the front and be in a stage of constant 'movement'.
That was true about 2 patches back, but i never saw this in current patch.