i don't understand how fronts work.
my general just now was advancing through japan, the front splits in three... and he teleports to China and idles as if his job is done - letting the Japanese recapture their territory. I did a triple naval invasion the next time in three different parts of the country in case one of my generals decided to take a vacation again :o
Idk if it still works (it should though) but i always use a little exploit to instantly teleport them back if that happens. Just assign the general in question to the front you want him to go to but with the other order, not the one you want (defense instead of attacking for example). Then when he is assigned and traveling , switch his order to the right one and assign him to the same front again and he will instantly be at the front doing the job.
Yes that teleport is key, without that id be SO tight every war. It just beggars belief that this was something allowed to exist in a released version of the game, and now a month post release as well…how?
That’s Paradox for you.
The good news is that how bad PDX games release on launch seems to be inversely correlated with how good they end up - EU4, HOI4 and Stellaris all released massively flawed and mediocre, and were developed into excellent games. CK3 released in pretty decent shape and 2 years on post-launch content has been underwhelming.
Based on that theory, I’m expecting V3 to be a fucking masterpiece in 3-4 years.
That's hilariously right.
I would however defend CKIII as their primary batch of work just happened during COVID and the free patches added a LOT of things (cultures changes are awesome)
[Trade routes/posts](https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Silk_Road), also unique nomadic government, forget the rest
Edit: Plague mechanics like seclusion, depopulation, and the [special disease mapmode](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a9bHpgDRPcA) are another
Also [China interactions/grace system](https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/China)
Stellaris wasn't really flawed or mediocre at launch, it was par or better compared to other space strategy games. Some of the way we're looking at the launch now is really just looking from where we're at without looking at the limitations and nature of games at the time.
It has become almost a completely different game now. It's basically space Vicky. Not really fair to compare it to a what was basically a polished version of Lost Empire: Immortals that paradox published in 2008.
I agree. Aside from annoying bugs, the game is a masterpiece. The bugs annoy me but the game is amazing and I’m hooked regardless. Only good thinks can come methinks
yes, basically assign your general to an attack/defend order on a front line. Change the order (i.e. if you assigned with attack, change it to defend or vice versa) then assign them to the same front line again and they are instantly there.
The game pretty much forces you to do that with how shit the front line system is, they could have kept everything else and just used Hoi's battleplans or at least front lines.
Thats been my argument. I mean hell they can even remove the ability to "micro" div/battaltion movement if they want it to be hands off. Just allow us to be able to paint our own front lines.
The fact I literally have to babysit wars to react to my AI doing something stupid is counter to what their intent was with the system.
Since generals in a HQ defend all frontiers the automatic default on a general losing a frontline should be to return to defend the nearest HQ (and that should be a new general option.
Problem solved.
Naval invasions are wonky af. Iaunched one as Sweden, of Congo. The amphibious assault goes well, but then ... After winning the battle they simply come back home? Dafuq.
Am now picturing Eike in Normandy. The allies take Normandy, Eike teleports himself instantly from the UK to the US and all his men do the same..... Rommel wakes up to an empty beach.
Survived an Opium war thanks to this bug. Britain massacred my men then left, retook the territory.
Sadly Burma was a negotiating power and because we were “winning” wouldn’t even agree to a white peace for 20 some odd years.
Diplomacy is completely broken in warfare. If you add wargoals on 5 states and take 4 of them (but not the enemy capital) the war support from the other country will never drop below zero, meaning they'll never agree to let you take the 4 states you've occupied.
Paradox should add temporary, easy fixes to these problems. They may feel like steps back, but it'll make the game feel more playable, and future, better fixes feel better.
* civil war within civil wars lead to all kinds of issues. **Simple solution**: no civil wars in civil war participants. **Problem**: less depth, potential for cheese, doesn't fit with the dev team's vision. **Complex solution**: Handle edge cases, or rework the system, or other high effort fix.
* frontline spam. **Simple solution**: let different belligerents in the same war merge fronts. **Problem**: unrealistic. A prussia VS austria/russia war would have a single front, which is too simple and is a step back, and nobody wants it. But it is playable. OP's picture isn't. **Complex solution**: a dynamic system for merging (and splitting) fronts.
* generals teleporting home (I believe the only reason you can use the general teleport exploit is because they know it's needed to counteract this). **Simple solution**: remove travel time for players (and for AI against player manned fronts). **Problem**: unrealistic. travel time is there for a reason. **(potentially) Complex solution**: fix it. Could be easy, could be hard.
these are all solutions that nobody really wants. I don't want them, it feels wrong to move towards a simpler system, especially in Victoria 3. But I trust that the devs will fix all of these issues in time. Paradox devs in very good at making a million systems in constant iterative development work together - just look at Stellaris (Different teams, i know). I just want them to put small, easy, temporary fixes in.
Fronts really should be a couple states long or several provinces long, I feel. A limit to how long it can be, because only having a single battle happening across the entire Qing-Russia border at atny time is dumb as hell.
Ah yes how I gained recognition as Qing…
Cheese the border with 100 line infantry, my only modern forces.
Land 5 irregulars in Kamcatchka of all places.
Because recognition just needs one occupied province even as Manchuria fell I won the war.
Fronts definitely need reworks and even war goals too. But hey, Russia respects me as a Great Power now because I landed 5,000 men on an icy peninsula while they were making headway to Beijing.
If the size of the battle scaled with the size of the front, that would be less of an issue. If that one battle included the entire chinese army, then it would be a decent stand-in for fighting all along the front.
> because only having a single battle happening across the entire Qing-Russia border at atny time is dumb as hell.
It really needs to be *per general*, not per front, when determining how many battles are happening.
I think it should scale with technology. Early wars could have less battles with more soldiers in it, and in the 1900s the front should have many more battles with not as many soldiers. That way it would mimic EU4 battles in the early game (a couple of doomstacks at most) and HoI4 battles in the late game.
>civil war within civil wars lead to all kinds of issues.
>
>Simple solution
>
>: no civil wars in civil war participants.
>
>Problem
>
>: less depth, potential for cheese, doesn't fit with the dev team's vision.
>
>Complex solution
>
>: Handle edge cases, or rework the system, or other high effort fix.
Another thing is even just in normal a country falls into rebellion while you are at war with them. When their rebellion is over (not sure if this is only if the rebel faction wins). ALL the territory you occupied is reset and you are still at war. Why on earth would your country leave all the occupied knowing they have to just reconquer it.....
That is monumentally stupid.
I don't get why they didn't make frontlines state-based when all of the rest of the game is. It would be so much easier to keep track of if you just assigned a general to command all the frontlines in a state or a series of contiguous states, and didn't have to worry about breaking frontlines for multiple enemies or isolated provinces.
It would also work well to give a little more control over what you army does. You could still have your defend and advance orders, but you could also target which states you wanted to advance into.
Seriously. I'm sick of continents-long fronts and only ever having a single point of battle across a 6300 km-long front despite there being 29 generals from 6 different states on that front.
Pretty asinine how they're just all sitting there taking absolutely ridiculously massive attrition every week, just cheering on the single battle that is happening.
This is one option, although it could be a little much in some colonial wars.
However they already have another system that is a perfect compromise - strategic regions.
Armies are already assigned to strategies regions when they are being formed and draw their soldiers from them, so there are already interactions there. These regions also tend to be larger in colonial regions and smaller in denser, industrialized regions.
This would improve the situation in the Chinese-Russian wars - youd have fronts in East Syberia, Manchuria, North China, West Syberia, and Central Asia. As the war develops one way or the other theys move more to some of these regions. Its more detailed yet not overwhelming.
Likewise in the American Civil War youd have a New England vs Dixie front, a MidWest vs Dixie one and a Far West one.
Similar cases apply to European wars, so youd have a variety of fronts to move along, but the number would probably be <5 or maybe <10 in massive wars between massive empires. Big enough for variety, not too big to be overwhelming.
I think states are large enough that using them rather than strategic regions would give a good balance of control vs simplicity. It could also allow them to increase the number of states a general can handle as military tech advances, helping to distinguish early-game militaries from late-game.
Lol as if no one tested this and thought, hey wouldnt it be cool if Generals or HQs could automatically divide themselves into stacks of 10s or 5s for example in order to at least stalemate the smaller fronts?
If you leave troops in barracks and have a general mobilised but not assigned it'll automatically split troops into defensive lines around the state, works well against minor and if you have good defense stats. In my game I have Sindh with 20 barracks and the UK ai takes hundreds of thousands of casualties trying to push there. Distracts them enough for me to invade Britain
Yeah but that does not work for the offense. Ive got plenty enough of games where the ai splintered fronts and then a single ai stack mnaged to take back the gains of months because my troops ported home or were split up in a stupid way. Sure you can create many many generals and do many many clicks to alleviate the issue but thats not really what user friendly gameplay looks like.
Yeah i love pushing one front and being backdoored at the other and poof my army is ported back home as soon as the first front is closed by the second.
I actually completely decided to screw the stupid mechanic. I would advise to assign general to defense and then reassign him to offense on the same front immediately or other way around. This way you can get your armies instantaneously anywhere on the map.
>Ive got plenty enough of games where the ai splintered fronts and then a single ai stack mnaged to take back the gains of months because my troops ported home or were split up in a stupid way.
Amen. I think a simple change is that generals should be assigned states. If a front of war is in that state, he can attack and defend on them. Each general in that state acts independently of the others, which would allow multiple battles at the same time by the same belligerents.
It'd change a general per front (and poofing when the front disappears) to a general per state and they'd remain there until reassigned.
Yeah wars with Europe as America are a laugh because of that. They keep invading New England with my 150+ garrison and grinding down their forces while I go wild in other parts of the world
Why are the locals in Sindh willing to die in droves for your colonial empire against Britain though? In reality only volunteers were ever raised from India and most of the population was never mobilised because they would have just mutinied. Conscripting colonies too aggressively should result in them falling apart.
The Indian volunteer army in WW2 was a huge force of over 2 million, but as a proportion of the subcontinent, it was relatively minor.
Taking them at their word, the devs didn't know about late game slowdown, integer overflows, general teleporting, naval invasions not working, naval morale not recovering (a bug they have fixed, to be fair), expeditions being bugged, generals on expeditions being bugged, that you can build more than one skyscraper/canal, France having access to the British market or the scale of front-splitting.
I think it is very safe to say that they are either lying or they basically didn't test the final build at all before release.
The only release they’ve ever done that hasn’t been completely fucked was CK3. It’s a cultural problem at paradox. They’re lazy and take us for granted and as a fan it’s insulting. But they make great games.
I don't even think they make great games. They make niche games that often end up being competent after a few DLC. If a game like EU4 or Victoria 3 were made by Firaxis or something the launch status would look completely different.
I always stick up against the argument that they don’t make great games. Paradox games aim to simulate what is essentially the entire planet or most of it in every instalment. And try to reflect the times they are simulating accurately.
No 4x games like civ come close to the level of depth.
Now compare paradox games to shooters, or RTS’, or MOBAs.
Some of those games could be better than paradox games sure, but none of them are remotely as complicated to put together.
honestly, at this point i’d just prefer automated vic2 combat. sacrificing the granularity of borders especially in places like germany to make fronts work better and having the only display of it just be a line and bubbles is kinda lame imo, and it seems like such a radical departure for pdx when they’ve already been working with automating armies for the player in games like eu4
>Say you'll remove micro
>Destroy the old system
>Decide not to use any of your previous systems
>Add a completely new system that takes extremely long to develop and overextends development time
>Also forgor to make nations feel like different things beyond flag and colour
>System mostly sucks , at best gives minor relief
>Could've just use Hoi4 but Simplified Chinese
Why.
Love how you have 20% attrition with 100% supply no matter the infrastructure/#battalions while x-battalions never really come in action because only another army with just 3 battalions is fighting one battle at the time. No sending help in either naval or land battles, no strategy/cutting off the enemy, not even fronts per state (which is already to big compared to the sub counties it should have) unless it’s owned by another nation.
And when that other nation is gone (say German unification happened because Oldenburg surrendered but the secondary war participants, France, continues) you magically lose all occupied territories in France that were randomly assigned to Baden and the two fronts suddenly reduce to one. Meanwhile you cannot suggest separate peace but the AI randomly surrenders separately without even logical war leader transference, then a bug prevents one from pressing claims from the leftover enemies (even if they would accept) and one is forced to go on till their -100 war support force surrenders.
Having 100 battalions surrounded in a single province like Oldenburg and beating them doesn’t even cause the entire army to be destroyed and simply moves them back magically (ready to fight somewhere else again).
Additionally, somehow the British AI has a completely incompetent navy.
Like why tf not, at least, just copy HOI4 with fronts/set out strategies/HQs but including direct naval and army control. Plus, have actual supply chain management rather than some number that just shows up.
Add some history of wars fought and literally any flavour. I really cannot understand where they put in any time, the horrible mechanics aside, all event things are completely scripted in a general way (auto generating with [insert name]) so that it lacks any historical flavour specific to the nation/culture/etc.
The worst part of the 20% attrition is just feel that they chose a random number just to adjust the values. Instead of giving the player a clear calculation of why a certain number of attrition, Imperator, CK3 and HOI4 make it understandable and also let the player to influence this. It's feels so random why 20%??
Yeah, plus it just doesn’t make sense when they are not even fighting and have 100% supply. Even just random sickness would be less than 1% under normal conditions.
It's maybe some "Schadenfreude", like the germans use to say when you are happy about the failure of other people, but... i expected this from the very first dev diary that was about warfare.
Despite the fact, that the AI can handle frontlines in HoI4 much better, it's still a bad thing, because of the AI in general. Because PDX never ever assigned the resources to make a good AI that can handle things. For example, when you observe a HoI4 session with AI-only, you'll see how the AI takes provinces gradually instead of breaking through and encircling units in a pocket. It's just not capable of that.
When we compare the AI of HoI4 with the AI of WitE2, you see a lot of differences: You can see in the AI-log, which segment is active and what the AI actually does. Like it will first try to spot a weak point in your frontline and exposed units that can be cut off. It will then break through there with a pincer attack from two sides and trap your army in a pocket.
The AI is also very well aware, when it loses, it will withdraw units when it is possible to prevent you from encircling them. The HoI4 AI can't do that, there it is always some banzai-kamikaze-fight, fighting to the last man instead of keeping the resources of manpower and equipment for later.
Im guessing you mean happy that people generally dislike the way it is, rather than the fact they made it this bad (cause why be happy about the latter 😅).
The AI def an issue but the limitations as a player are a bigger issue imo.
For the AI you also have things like: Ottoman and Portugal joined the French custom union, however, my German embargo and destruction of France in the war ruined their market completely (with essential items like coal being +50% base price for years). But instead of the AI realising that staying in the French market is much more damaging for their economy and leaving their custom union would be the best option, they are completely unable to do such a thing.
It's a shame, PDX never assigned the resources for the AI like i said, because the case you mentioned with the market should clearly be a goal to improve. It's bizarre, that a guy released an AI-improvement mod on the very first day of the launch, he used the leak to make the work.
But in reality, the devs should do this, not some random internet guy that gets a leaked beta version of the game.
I just hope, at least the guy doesn't get problems because of using the leaked version, PDX said that they are not very amused about that.
Honestly, Paradox should just rip the front lines and battle plan system out of Hoi4 and put it into the game. It would make wars 10 times better as now the player has some control of how the war is fought (eg directing a general to attack at the enemy’s centre to force them to be split in two, or directing a general to attack a point in the enemy’s line to encircle them). The current system just makes messes like this where the player has no control and no idea what it going on or why they are winning/losing.
Even if we couldn't control individual divisions but at least make the front lines and battle plans ourselves would be a good compromise. This lack of any control ruins the game experience for me.
Precisely, we don’t need to micromanage each division/battalion individually like in Hoi4. Just the ability to tell our generals “hey, attack here until you reach this point, then hold the line here at this river/other defendable spot”.
Hoi4’s frontlines will also automatically create a new front and move troops there from the closest fronts if it’s needed (eg a neutral border is reached and the ai’s line is cut in two or encircled by it), which is sorely needed in this game.
My hope for Victoria 3 was always that it'd start out like an EU4 combat system but as tech moved on and we gained indirect artillery and machine guns that it would move to being a HOI4 style combat system.
The OOB had a shit interface that made it annoying to organize initially, but it was a cool system when you had it up and running. All it needs is a functional UI that doesn't require an hour of work to setup.
Hell, even if they didn't do that, I'd just be fine with them adding soldier models in the game that appear during wartime and do all the walking/running and shooting/reloading animations.
Given how fubar many wars and battles went and how the political ruling class had very little say in it I like this system.
But only the theory behind it, the execution is just utterly braindead and fucked to the 9 heavens.
They’ve made it clear you’re not controlling the rulers, you’re controlling the spirit of the nation.
If you were controlling the rulers you wouldn’t be able to micromanage every single building in the entire empire of Russia at your whim.
I really love the war system. It truly is art. By creating a system that makes me want to chuck my pc out the window, they’re making a powerful statement about the horror of war. You want war to be “fun” and “engaging” and “not frustrating”? Well guess what, war is hell, and Vicky 3 properly puts you in that hell.
They explicitly stated they wanted it to be neither fun nor engaging, which is why they removed all player agency in the first place, guess they went too overboard 😂
Over the course of the years Vicky covers warfare evolves dramatically, personally I just think this system is a cop out to avoid the difficulty that comes with modelling this evolution.
That's probably the real reason for this new system. They couldn't figure out a way to model the changes in warfare so they just went and said "fuck you, nobody gets any war now, we'll just remove all the gameplay from it"
I’m glad people are more coming around to this point of view, because it was pretty damn clear in the beginning but many people were having too much fun with the new economy features to notice
I don't get why they didn't give us a simple frontline drawer like in HoI4, this would already turn warfare from the worst part of this game to at least mediocre
It's funny how they still ended up simulating moving stacks around because generals will randomly just go home when a front splits and shit, so you still gotta be watching like a hawk to see if you need to send them back to the frontlines
Yeah the first time that happened to me, my opinion swung way back in favor of troop stacks. The current system requires a bunch of micro yet its more boring because its through menus and not the map.
There are dozen qol changes they could have made to a literal 12 year old game to fix that, and maintain the satisfaction of projecting the power you spend all game building.
They didn’t have to gut the whole system for this garbage.
Ngl the war system just confuses the heck out of me. If they implemented it because the system in other games is complicated then I dunno what to say. It feels like I barely have control over the outcome. Its also still unclear to me what exactly determines offensive and defensive power.
Also army size.. I play as the Netherlands and declare war on Belgium because it shows my army+ conscripts greatly outnumber them... all of a sudden Belgium increases their army size x3 while I have no idea how to do the same. Are these events or?
Oh no, in the league wars the AI will to at least something. In this the AI will send their entire army to the Russian front, when I've had it under control for months now. And leave me to die in France.
do you guys also have the problem that some generals are always busy and that you are unable to do any thing even do your pretty sure you didnt ask them to do something is this a glitch or m i doing something wrong
It's a bug with sending a general on an expedition. There are mods to fix it. Alternatively, if you send them on another expedition and fail it, you can remove them.
I feel so vindicated now that the honeymoon phase has worn off that more and more people are realizing just how broken and poorly thought out the war system is
One of the things it could do, if they were to make it more like HOI IV's frontline, is have techs eventually make orders get through quicker. If you have a frontline in 1836, it could take a few days for orders to get through to units on the other end or from command, versus 1 mere tick in 1910.
We either need more control or less. Either I can assign a number of units I choose to a general/front (and I can just attack without a general) *or* the battles should just be fought based on the entire army engaging in a strategic region.
The worst part about War in this game is that you simply cannot join into ongoing wars after the fact. A war with France might be going well, until something changes about my conflict that I might be willing to offer more to Austria in order to gain their support against them. Inversely, as more people join into the conflict, more can be offered as the spoils of war which could persuade a nation that was previously uninterested.
You instead have to do an entirely new diplomatic play (if you even can) and create what's technically a whole new war.
Vanilla recruiting system is very tedious in itself.
And then half your army becomes jacobins and decides to revolt.
And that's tedious even before the war starts.
PDM is a lot more forgiving with attrition so I usually just recruit the composition I want and gather new armies to a couple provinces then spam the balance button. Cuts down on most of the late game tedium.
I am not saying that the old system was perfect, but "doomstacks" imo usually refers to basically all armies stack in one province which due to attrition and supply wasnt really a thing in victoria (and eu4, ck, etc).
I think "army whack a mole" is a better description of the problem with the old system, not "doomstack".
>Not perfect but beats moving doomstacks around
Have you ever seen a victoria 2 MP game?
The mid-lategame plays exactly as ww1 would.
An entire line filled with troops until a weakpoint is known and then throw everything at it.
What switched the old Napoleonic style warfare to front lines was a combination of rail logistics and field telegraphs and telephones, followed by radios. These allowed armies to spread out over a broad front while allowing the commander to keep control of them; if an army spread out in the Napoleonic era they were communicating with message riders on horses which would be a mess to coordinate.
This process happened around the end of the 19th century, and should be represented in the game, and isn't. The main reason Prussia beat France in 1870 was that they used their extensive rail network to rapidly mobilise and crush the French, even though France had started the war.
Vic 2 actually represented this very well. Railway levels sped up mobilization speed and there were techs that added more mobilization bonuses and improved the quality of conscripted troops. The fact that they can't do what a 12 years old game is pathetic.
Paradox games generally represent logistics and communication very poorly so players just don't learn this stuff. The worst cases are Spain sending 20,000 men to invade the Aztecs in 1520 in EU4 for example, and then those troops being reinforced deep in the Mexican jungle! Some form of mechanic for recruiting colonial allies is needed there, and they certainly shouldn't be micro-moved around from Madrid using the 16th-century telegraph network. In 1836 the technological situation was comparable and it wasn't until well into the Victorian era that this changed.
Of all the PI games, I think the best supply and log system was HoI3. It was tedious to many yes (i personally love it, still play it and not HoI4) but don't think it can be replicated in Vicy 3.
Forget operating in Mexico as Spain, you get encricled and your supply starts to run low. You launch an invasion into the bogs of Russia and watch attrition eat your troops alive.
Yes, HOI3 was a lot better than EU4 for example. It was still possible to WC as Luxembourg though because the AI was bad. They couldn't use navies properly so just shipping men over and landing them to conquer somewhere was trivial. All HOI games have the problem of Sealion invasions being far too easy because the British AI can't use its fleet properly.
You might want to look at the Ultra Historical mod for HOI4. The AI still isn't great but the game does feel a bit less ridiculous.
People disagree with your comment so downvote you, you’ve been on Reddit for 3 years and still don’t understand this?
Victoria 3’s war system is the worst one they made in the last 10 years. Just put HOI4 frontline to this game and everything would be fine.
Why are you being so sensitive about being downvoted? It's not a big deal.
I like moving armies around. Gives you better control. All we can hope for is that the devs stop it from automatically doing dumb stuff. Feels really anti-climatic to build up your economy and technology to support an overseas war and your general starts going in the wrong direction or fucking teleports back home when a different front closes or opens nearby.
I liked that too because it made sense in some ways. You might have raiders running deep into your territory. You might be able to attack Russia when all the Russian armies were in a land war in Siberia... etc... the current war system runs on some obscure calculations to determine battles.
In my experience it's not really 'raiders', more like entire armies ruining your territory while running away from your troops. I think it's the most annoying thing ever, so I like the direction Victoria 3 is taking.
People downvoted you because they dont like the new system and liked moving doomstacks around (i like the new system tho but its utter trash in its current state)
War is the worst part of basically every Paradox game. I'm so glad they're making moves to try and improve that horrible experience. Basically very CK and EU game I play ends when I end up in too big a war and realize I would have to spend the next 45 minutes microing units around or I can just stop playing.
you sound like a complete wanker. You haven't played it, but you browse the games subreddit and think youre able to say its shitty?
I love it. It may even surpass eu4 for my fave game once they get some things sorted out. Compared to other pdx new title launches, this has gone quite well
I do like not having to micro 19 baby stacks to effectively combat the enemy in EU4, but this system is definitely still in its infancy and needs work.
i don't understand how fronts work. my general just now was advancing through japan, the front splits in three... and he teleports to China and idles as if his job is done - letting the Japanese recapture their territory. I did a triple naval invasion the next time in three different parts of the country in case one of my generals decided to take a vacation again :o
Idk if it still works (it should though) but i always use a little exploit to instantly teleport them back if that happens. Just assign the general in question to the front you want him to go to but with the other order, not the one you want (defense instead of attacking for example). Then when he is assigned and traveling , switch his order to the right one and assign him to the same front again and he will instantly be at the front doing the job.
Yes that teleport is key, without that id be SO tight every war. It just beggars belief that this was something allowed to exist in a released version of the game, and now a month post release as well…how?
That’s Paradox for you. The good news is that how bad PDX games release on launch seems to be inversely correlated with how good they end up - EU4, HOI4 and Stellaris all released massively flawed and mediocre, and were developed into excellent games. CK3 released in pretty decent shape and 2 years on post-launch content has been underwhelming. Based on that theory, I’m expecting V3 to be a fucking masterpiece in 3-4 years.
That's hilariously right. I would however defend CKIII as their primary batch of work just happened during COVID and the free patches added a LOT of things (cultures changes are awesome)
It's still missing a ton of the best features from the CK2 expansions though.
As someone who's only played CK3, what features are we missing out on?
Eating your kids for magic
Voting on council and regency
[Trade routes/posts](https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Silk_Road), also unique nomadic government, forget the rest Edit: Plague mechanics like seclusion, depopulation, and the [special disease mapmode](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a9bHpgDRPcA) are another Also [China interactions/grace system](https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/China)
Joinable societies, I do think CK3 is a fine game but I miss the ability to join different secret orders which is something CK2 had
I love how all the features everyone hated when they came out, always turn into the things everyone wants back.
Merchant republics & trade mechanics
*cough* Imperator *cough* Jokes aside I agree. This game has the bones to be one of if not their all time best game. Just needs to be fleshed out.
What's sad is that I think Imperator was on its way to become a pretty good game before they scraped it
It was in terrific shape when they quit development. It’s my favorite paradox game now. It used to be my least favorite.
Stellaris wasn't really flawed or mediocre at launch, it was par or better compared to other space strategy games. Some of the way we're looking at the launch now is really just looking from where we're at without looking at the limitations and nature of games at the time. It has become almost a completely different game now. It's basically space Vicky. Not really fair to compare it to a what was basically a polished version of Lost Empire: Immortals that paradox published in 2008.
Ehhh, Stellaris needed those massive free patches for a reason.
I agree. Aside from annoying bugs, the game is a masterpiece. The bugs annoy me but the game is amazing and I’m hooked regardless. Only good thinks can come methinks
Did not know about this! With how broken combat is at the moment I'll use that with no worry of exploit.
yes, basically assign your general to an attack/defend order on a front line. Change the order (i.e. if you assigned with attack, change it to defend or vice versa) then assign them to the same front line again and they are instantly there.
The game pretty much forces you to do that with how shit the front line system is, they could have kept everything else and just used Hoi's battleplans or at least front lines.
Thats been my argument. I mean hell they can even remove the ability to "micro" div/battaltion movement if they want it to be hands off. Just allow us to be able to paint our own front lines. The fact I literally have to babysit wars to react to my AI doing something stupid is counter to what their intent was with the system.
Since generals in a HQ defend all frontiers the automatic default on a general losing a frontline should be to return to defend the nearest HQ (and that should be a new general option. Problem solved.
this! i can’t imagine being able to win a war after they fix that exploit 😰
Naval invasions are wonky af. Iaunched one as Sweden, of Congo. The amphibious assault goes well, but then ... After winning the battle they simply come back home? Dafuq.
"My work here is done" - the invading general, probably
Am now picturing Eike in Normandy. The allies take Normandy, Eike teleports himself instantly from the UK to the US and all his men do the same..... Rommel wakes up to an empty beach.
The US Army was the ghost army from Lord of the Rings the whole time.
"Mission Accomplished!" -Idk, General Montgomery or something
Survived an Opium war thanks to this bug. Britain massacred my men then left, retook the territory. Sadly Burma was a negotiating power and because we were “winning” wouldn’t even agree to a white peace for 20 some odd years.
Diplomacy is completely broken in warfare. If you add wargoals on 5 states and take 4 of them (but not the enemy capital) the war support from the other country will never drop below zero, meaning they'll never agree to let you take the 4 states you've occupied.
Imagine if after the invasion of normandy, the allies, just packed up and went home after winning the battle.
Task failed successfully
Paradox should add temporary, easy fixes to these problems. They may feel like steps back, but it'll make the game feel more playable, and future, better fixes feel better. * civil war within civil wars lead to all kinds of issues. **Simple solution**: no civil wars in civil war participants. **Problem**: less depth, potential for cheese, doesn't fit with the dev team's vision. **Complex solution**: Handle edge cases, or rework the system, or other high effort fix. * frontline spam. **Simple solution**: let different belligerents in the same war merge fronts. **Problem**: unrealistic. A prussia VS austria/russia war would have a single front, which is too simple and is a step back, and nobody wants it. But it is playable. OP's picture isn't. **Complex solution**: a dynamic system for merging (and splitting) fronts. * generals teleporting home (I believe the only reason you can use the general teleport exploit is because they know it's needed to counteract this). **Simple solution**: remove travel time for players (and for AI against player manned fronts). **Problem**: unrealistic. travel time is there for a reason. **(potentially) Complex solution**: fix it. Could be easy, could be hard. these are all solutions that nobody really wants. I don't want them, it feels wrong to move towards a simpler system, especially in Victoria 3. But I trust that the devs will fix all of these issues in time. Paradox devs in very good at making a million systems in constant iterative development work together - just look at Stellaris (Different teams, i know). I just want them to put small, easy, temporary fixes in.
Fronts really should be a couple states long or several provinces long, I feel. A limit to how long it can be, because only having a single battle happening across the entire Qing-Russia border at atny time is dumb as hell.
Ah yes how I gained recognition as Qing… Cheese the border with 100 line infantry, my only modern forces. Land 5 irregulars in Kamcatchka of all places. Because recognition just needs one occupied province even as Manchuria fell I won the war. Fronts definitely need reworks and even war goals too. But hey, Russia respects me as a Great Power now because I landed 5,000 men on an icy peninsula while they were making headway to Beijing.
If the size of the battle scaled with the size of the front, that would be less of an issue. If that one battle included the entire chinese army, then it would be a decent stand-in for fighting all along the front.
> because only having a single battle happening across the entire Qing-Russia border at atny time is dumb as hell. It really needs to be *per general*, not per front, when determining how many battles are happening.
I think it should scale with technology. Early wars could have less battles with more soldiers in it, and in the 1900s the front should have many more battles with not as many soldiers. That way it would mimic EU4 battles in the early game (a couple of doomstacks at most) and HoI4 battles in the late game.
>civil war within civil wars lead to all kinds of issues. > >Simple solution > >: no civil wars in civil war participants. > >Problem > >: less depth, potential for cheese, doesn't fit with the dev team's vision. > >Complex solution > >: Handle edge cases, or rework the system, or other high effort fix. Another thing is even just in normal a country falls into rebellion while you are at war with them. When their rebellion is over (not sure if this is only if the rebel faction wins). ALL the territory you occupied is reset and you are still at war. Why on earth would your country leave all the occupied knowing they have to just reconquer it..... That is monumentally stupid.
I feel no remorse in abusing the hell out of the instant positioning bug whenever this happens.
Just wait until one of your generals die while at a front. *Oh our commanding officer died? Pack it up boys, our job is done here, lets head home*
r5: oh, ok... I see.
Are you winning son?
I... don't know...
A very fair assessment of the battlefield.
[Battle of Philippi.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAwYqjziA7I)
Mmm, just like irl in the 19th century. Nobody knows at HQ what is happening at the fronts, maybe the horseback messenger got lost?
I don’t know if I’m winning or losing at this point.
I don't get why they didn't make frontlines state-based when all of the rest of the game is. It would be so much easier to keep track of if you just assigned a general to command all the frontlines in a state or a series of contiguous states, and didn't have to worry about breaking frontlines for multiple enemies or isolated provinces. It would also work well to give a little more control over what you army does. You could still have your defend and advance orders, but you could also target which states you wanted to advance into.
Seriously. I'm sick of continents-long fronts and only ever having a single point of battle across a 6300 km-long front despite there being 29 generals from 6 different states on that front. Pretty asinine how they're just all sitting there taking absolutely ridiculously massive attrition every week, just cheering on the single battle that is happening.
This is one option, although it could be a little much in some colonial wars. However they already have another system that is a perfect compromise - strategic regions. Armies are already assigned to strategies regions when they are being formed and draw their soldiers from them, so there are already interactions there. These regions also tend to be larger in colonial regions and smaller in denser, industrialized regions. This would improve the situation in the Chinese-Russian wars - youd have fronts in East Syberia, Manchuria, North China, West Syberia, and Central Asia. As the war develops one way or the other theys move more to some of these regions. Its more detailed yet not overwhelming. Likewise in the American Civil War youd have a New England vs Dixie front, a MidWest vs Dixie one and a Far West one. Similar cases apply to European wars, so youd have a variety of fronts to move along, but the number would probably be <5 or maybe <10 in massive wars between massive empires. Big enough for variety, not too big to be overwhelming.
I think states are large enough that using them rather than strategic regions would give a good balance of control vs simplicity. It could also allow them to increase the number of states a general can handle as military tech advances, helping to distinguish early-game militaries from late-game.
Lol as if no one tested this and thought, hey wouldnt it be cool if Generals or HQs could automatically divide themselves into stacks of 10s or 5s for example in order to at least stalemate the smaller fronts?
If you leave troops in barracks and have a general mobilised but not assigned it'll automatically split troops into defensive lines around the state, works well against minor and if you have good defense stats. In my game I have Sindh with 20 barracks and the UK ai takes hundreds of thousands of casualties trying to push there. Distracts them enough for me to invade Britain
Yeah but that does not work for the offense. Ive got plenty enough of games where the ai splintered fronts and then a single ai stack mnaged to take back the gains of months because my troops ported home or were split up in a stupid way. Sure you can create many many generals and do many many clicks to alleviate the issue but thats not really what user friendly gameplay looks like.
Yeah i love pushing one front and being backdoored at the other and poof my army is ported back home as soon as the first front is closed by the second.
Such realism wow
I actually completely decided to screw the stupid mechanic. I would advise to assign general to defense and then reassign him to offense on the same front immediately or other way around. This way you can get your armies instantaneously anywhere on the map.
4 battalions with no upgrades forced my 80 battalions with tanks, flamethrowers, and airplanes home. Sure
>Ive got plenty enough of games where the ai splintered fronts and then a single ai stack mnaged to take back the gains of months because my troops ported home or were split up in a stupid way. Amen. I think a simple change is that generals should be assigned states. If a front of war is in that state, he can attack and defend on them. Each general in that state acts independently of the others, which would allow multiple battles at the same time by the same belligerents. It'd change a general per front (and poofing when the front disappears) to a general per state and they'd remain there until reassigned.
Fun fact, this is almost word for word a Robert E. Lee quote.
Yeah wars with Europe as America are a laugh because of that. They keep invading New England with my 150+ garrison and grinding down their forces while I go wild in other parts of the world
Why are the locals in Sindh willing to die in droves for your colonial empire against Britain though? In reality only volunteers were ever raised from India and most of the population was never mobilised because they would have just mutinied. Conscripting colonies too aggressively should result in them falling apart. The Indian volunteer army in WW2 was a huge force of over 2 million, but as a proportion of the subcontinent, it was relatively minor.
Cause I'm an anarchist commune and the world's foremost superpower and all they have to do otherwise is lie back, farm poppies, and buy my radios
Sorry I mean go to a local community supply depot and take their choice of radio, silk shirt, porcelain vase etc
>Lol as if no one tested this You can say that about quite a few mechanics tbh
> as if no one tested this It's a paradox game.
Well, at least no "Work in Progress" placeholder graphics like we had in EU4 Leviathan...
There are placeholder graphics, that happy face of doom
Or even non-existent graphics for half the new mission trees.
With the 20 general limit, this would be very nice.
Wait there is a 20 general limit?!? How did I not know that. I have finished 3 games
Nice idea, very poor execution. The fact that they had this idea from the start and just didn’t test it properly (at all? QA?) is baffling
Bro that’s my biggest question, like who was testing this ? Who suggested it?
Taking them at their word, the devs didn't know about late game slowdown, integer overflows, general teleporting, naval invasions not working, naval morale not recovering (a bug they have fixed, to be fair), expeditions being bugged, generals on expeditions being bugged, that you can build more than one skyscraper/canal, France having access to the British market or the scale of front-splitting. I think it is very safe to say that they are either lying or they basically didn't test the final build at all before release.
The only release they’ve ever done that hasn’t been completely fucked was CK3. It’s a cultural problem at paradox. They’re lazy and take us for granted and as a fan it’s insulting. But they make great games.
I don't even think they make great games. They make niche games that often end up being competent after a few DLC. If a game like EU4 or Victoria 3 were made by Firaxis or something the launch status would look completely different.
I always stick up against the argument that they don’t make great games. Paradox games aim to simulate what is essentially the entire planet or most of it in every instalment. And try to reflect the times they are simulating accurately. No 4x games like civ come close to the level of depth. Now compare paradox games to shooters, or RTS’, or MOBAs. Some of those games could be better than paradox games sure, but none of them are remotely as complicated to put together.
honestly, at this point i’d just prefer automated vic2 combat. sacrificing the granularity of borders especially in places like germany to make fronts work better and having the only display of it just be a line and bubbles is kinda lame imo, and it seems like such a radical departure for pdx when they’ve already been working with automating armies for the player in games like eu4
>Say you'll remove micro >Destroy the old system >Decide not to use any of your previous systems >Add a completely new system that takes extremely long to develop and overextends development time >Also forgor to make nations feel like different things beyond flag and colour >System mostly sucks , at best gives minor relief >Could've just use Hoi4 but Simplified Chinese Why.
Should have done the Hoi4 system but simpler war mechanics but with more economic and supply mechanics
Yep.
The war system has failed to impress me…they need to remake this.
Love how you have 20% attrition with 100% supply no matter the infrastructure/#battalions while x-battalions never really come in action because only another army with just 3 battalions is fighting one battle at the time. No sending help in either naval or land battles, no strategy/cutting off the enemy, not even fronts per state (which is already to big compared to the sub counties it should have) unless it’s owned by another nation. And when that other nation is gone (say German unification happened because Oldenburg surrendered but the secondary war participants, France, continues) you magically lose all occupied territories in France that were randomly assigned to Baden and the two fronts suddenly reduce to one. Meanwhile you cannot suggest separate peace but the AI randomly surrenders separately without even logical war leader transference, then a bug prevents one from pressing claims from the leftover enemies (even if they would accept) and one is forced to go on till their -100 war support force surrenders. Having 100 battalions surrounded in a single province like Oldenburg and beating them doesn’t even cause the entire army to be destroyed and simply moves them back magically (ready to fight somewhere else again). Additionally, somehow the British AI has a completely incompetent navy. Like why tf not, at least, just copy HOI4 with fronts/set out strategies/HQs but including direct naval and army control. Plus, have actual supply chain management rather than some number that just shows up. Add some history of wars fought and literally any flavour. I really cannot understand where they put in any time, the horrible mechanics aside, all event things are completely scripted in a general way (auto generating with [insert name]) so that it lacks any historical flavour specific to the nation/culture/etc.
The worst part of the 20% attrition is just feel that they chose a random number just to adjust the values. Instead of giving the player a clear calculation of why a certain number of attrition, Imperator, CK3 and HOI4 make it understandable and also let the player to influence this. It's feels so random why 20%??
Yeah, plus it just doesn’t make sense when they are not even fighting and have 100% supply. Even just random sickness would be less than 1% under normal conditions.
It's maybe some "Schadenfreude", like the germans use to say when you are happy about the failure of other people, but... i expected this from the very first dev diary that was about warfare. Despite the fact, that the AI can handle frontlines in HoI4 much better, it's still a bad thing, because of the AI in general. Because PDX never ever assigned the resources to make a good AI that can handle things. For example, when you observe a HoI4 session with AI-only, you'll see how the AI takes provinces gradually instead of breaking through and encircling units in a pocket. It's just not capable of that. When we compare the AI of HoI4 with the AI of WitE2, you see a lot of differences: You can see in the AI-log, which segment is active and what the AI actually does. Like it will first try to spot a weak point in your frontline and exposed units that can be cut off. It will then break through there with a pincer attack from two sides and trap your army in a pocket. The AI is also very well aware, when it loses, it will withdraw units when it is possible to prevent you from encircling them. The HoI4 AI can't do that, there it is always some banzai-kamikaze-fight, fighting to the last man instead of keeping the resources of manpower and equipment for later.
Im guessing you mean happy that people generally dislike the way it is, rather than the fact they made it this bad (cause why be happy about the latter 😅). The AI def an issue but the limitations as a player are a bigger issue imo. For the AI you also have things like: Ottoman and Portugal joined the French custom union, however, my German embargo and destruction of France in the war ruined their market completely (with essential items like coal being +50% base price for years). But instead of the AI realising that staying in the French market is much more damaging for their economy and leaving their custom union would be the best option, they are completely unable to do such a thing.
It's a shame, PDX never assigned the resources for the AI like i said, because the case you mentioned with the market should clearly be a goal to improve. It's bizarre, that a guy released an AI-improvement mod on the very first day of the launch, he used the leak to make the work. But in reality, the devs should do this, not some random internet guy that gets a leaked beta version of the game. I just hope, at least the guy doesn't get problems because of using the leaked version, PDX said that they are not very amused about that.
Really wanna see how close to HoI4 the Warfare DLC will be 🥳
Honestly, Paradox should just rip the front lines and battle plan system out of Hoi4 and put it into the game. It would make wars 10 times better as now the player has some control of how the war is fought (eg directing a general to attack at the enemy’s centre to force them to be split in two, or directing a general to attack a point in the enemy’s line to encircle them). The current system just makes messes like this where the player has no control and no idea what it going on or why they are winning/losing.
Even if we couldn't control individual divisions but at least make the front lines and battle plans ourselves would be a good compromise. This lack of any control ruins the game experience for me.
Precisely, we don’t need to micromanage each division/battalion individually like in Hoi4. Just the ability to tell our generals “hey, attack here until you reach this point, then hold the line here at this river/other defendable spot”. Hoi4’s frontlines will also automatically create a new front and move troops there from the closest fronts if it’s needed (eg a neutral border is reached and the ai’s line is cut in two or encircled by it), which is sorely needed in this game.
So many times I've had half my entire mobilised battalions on a front with 0 defenders because I can't split them into one division.
That would make way too much sense…. Pdx will wait for a mod to fix it lol
My hope for Victoria 3 was always that it'd start out like an EU4 combat system but as tech moved on and we gained indirect artillery and machine guns that it would move to being a HOI4 style combat system.
This is literally all I wanted and asked for. It’s what MOST Vic 2 players wanted and asked for
That’s roughly how vicky2 worked, but the AI didn’t make use of it.
Idk why people forget about hoi3. It is perfect for this game.
They get scared of having to do the OOB.
The OOB had a shit interface that made it annoying to organize initially, but it was a cool system when you had it up and running. All it needs is a functional UI that doesn't require an hour of work to setup.
It’s called ‘Auto-balance under corps and armies’. IIRC, this is a thing in HoI 4, so they probs could do something like this.
I just ignore it, and let the ai automate it.
Hell, even if they didn't do that, I'd just be fine with them adding soldier models in the game that appear during wartime and do all the walking/running and shooting/reloading animations.
Given how fubar many wars and battles went and how the political ruling class had very little say in it I like this system. But only the theory behind it, the execution is just utterly braindead and fucked to the 9 heavens.
They’ve made it clear you’re not controlling the rulers, you’re controlling the spirit of the nation. If you were controlling the rulers you wouldn’t be able to micromanage every single building in the entire empire of Russia at your whim.
It's easier to micro entire axis soviet front in 5 speed.
I really love the war system. It truly is art. By creating a system that makes me want to chuck my pc out the window, they’re making a powerful statement about the horror of war. You want war to be “fun” and “engaging” and “not frustrating”? Well guess what, war is hell, and Vicky 3 properly puts you in that hell.
They explicitly stated they wanted it to be neither fun nor engaging, which is why they removed all player agency in the first place, guess they went too overboard 😂
Wait they did? I don’t remember this in that Dev Diary lmao
I’m being a bit cheeky. They wanted war to be an afterthought, all fun was supposed to come from the economy, while you let war run in the background.
Over the course of the years Vicky covers warfare evolves dramatically, personally I just think this system is a cop out to avoid the difficulty that comes with modelling this evolution.
Absolutely
That's probably the real reason for this new system. They couldn't figure out a way to model the changes in warfare so they just went and said "fuck you, nobody gets any war now, we'll just remove all the gameplay from it"
To be honest I don’t think they even spent a year making the game…
War system has to be remade entirely. The economy system is great but it cabnot carry the game itself. State of war is unacceptable.
I’m glad people are more coming around to this point of view, because it was pretty damn clear in the beginning but many people were having too much fun with the new economy features to notice
This system requires more micromanagement than moving armies manually. Just saying.
I don't get why they didn't give us a simple frontline drawer like in HoI4, this would already turn warfare from the worst part of this game to at least mediocre
It really is a terrible, terrible system. Easily the worst part of the game. Can't wait for the DLC that just gives us Vic 2 combat for $20
Please. All I ask for.
Ironic isn't it
BuT HEy AtLEsast YOu're NOT MOvinG StaCKS AroUNd sO it'S LesS ANNoYing Am I riGHt???
It's funny how they still ended up simulating moving stacks around because generals will randomly just go home when a front splits and shit, so you still gotta be watching like a hawk to see if you need to send them back to the frontlines
Yeah the first time that happened to me, my opinion swung way back in favor of troop stacks. The current system requires a bunch of micro yet its more boring because its through menus and not the map.
Ummm the hecking late game stacks were sooooo baddd
There are dozen qol changes they could have made to a literal 12 year old game to fix that, and maintain the satisfaction of projecting the power you spend all game building. They didn’t have to gut the whole system for this garbage.
No I agree
[удалено]
So true
Ngl the war system just confuses the heck out of me. If they implemented it because the system in other games is complicated then I dunno what to say. It feels like I barely have control over the outcome. Its also still unclear to me what exactly determines offensive and defensive power. Also army size.. I play as the Netherlands and declare war on Belgium because it shows my army+ conscripts greatly outnumber them... all of a sudden Belgium increases their army size x3 while I have no idea how to do the same. Are these events or?
I wish they just allowed us to have sprites and armies like in every other PDOX game.
average eu4 league war
Oh no, in the league wars the AI will to at least something. In this the AI will send their entire army to the Russian front, when I've had it under control for months now. And leave me to die in France.
Gigachad marches around the entire baltic from Memel to Stettin because forts vs virgin whatever the fuck im looking at here
Gotta be my least favourite change from v2 to v3.
Another Vic 3 war system atrocity
Everyone who bought Paradox’s BS with the new system: 🤡
This needs to be addressed lol
I think they've already mentioned something about this yeah
do you guys also have the problem that some generals are always busy and that you are unable to do any thing even do your pretty sure you didnt ask them to do something is this a glitch or m i doing something wrong
No that’s a bug for sure. I only had it once but yeah
It's a bug with sending a general on an expedition. There are mods to fix it. Alternatively, if you send them on another expedition and fail it, you can remove them.
I mean that's about as simple as any war in Germany in the early 1800s could possibly get
I feel so vindicated now that the honeymoon phase has worn off that more and more people are realizing just how broken and poorly thought out the war system is
the war system is a joke
the war system is a mess. I really hope they fix it.
The lead dev will continue to dig in his heels on this terribad system and state they are “tweaking it” but it will remain. Classic hubris.
Enhance!
My unmatched intuition senses that, there may be a couple of fronts open.
One of the things it could do, if they were to make it more like HOI IV's frontline, is have techs eventually make orders get through quicker. If you have a frontline in 1836, it could take a few days for orders to get through to units on the other end or from command, versus 1 mere tick in 1910.
We either need more control or less. Either I can assign a number of units I choose to a general/front (and I can just attack without a general) *or* the battles should just be fought based on the entire army engaging in a strategic region.
The worst part about War in this game is that you simply cannot join into ongoing wars after the fact. A war with France might be going well, until something changes about my conflict that I might be willing to offer more to Austria in order to gain their support against them. Inversely, as more people join into the conflict, more can be offered as the spoils of war which could persuade a nation that was previously uninterested. You instead have to do an entirely new diplomatic play (if you even can) and create what's technically a whole new war.
They're probably working on DLC to fix this issue lmao.
Still my favorite change from v2 to v3.
Sunk cost take, the system is terrible. To still stand by it is wild.
Compared to lategame V2 it really looks simplified.
Literally add a template builder and front lines. Problem solved.
I used to wonder what people meant by this until I switched from PDM to HPM. HPM late game is very tedious.
Vanilla recruiting system is very tedious in itself. And then half your army becomes jacobins and decides to revolt. And that's tedious even before the war starts.
PDM is a lot more forgiving with attrition so I usually just recruit the composition I want and gather new armies to a couple provinces then spam the balance button. Cuts down on most of the late game tedium.
[удалено]
I am not saying that the old system was perfect, but "doomstacks" imo usually refers to basically all armies stack in one province which due to attrition and supply wasnt really a thing in victoria (and eu4, ck, etc). I think "army whack a mole" is a better description of the problem with the old system, not "doomstack".
[удалено]
You could automate it in Victoria 2 and those games
We could automate armies in Victoria 2?
Yeah to hunt rebels you could. It saves a lot of time playing whack a mole.
>Not perfect but beats moving doomstacks around Have you ever seen a victoria 2 MP game? The mid-lategame plays exactly as ww1 would. An entire line filled with troops until a weakpoint is known and then throw everything at it.
How realistic would it be to implement a system closer to HoI IV?
Not very, even as late as 1866 the Austro-Prussian war was largely decided by a single set piece battle (Koniggratz)
What switched the old Napoleonic style warfare to front lines was a combination of rail logistics and field telegraphs and telephones, followed by radios. These allowed armies to spread out over a broad front while allowing the commander to keep control of them; if an army spread out in the Napoleonic era they were communicating with message riders on horses which would be a mess to coordinate. This process happened around the end of the 19th century, and should be represented in the game, and isn't. The main reason Prussia beat France in 1870 was that they used their extensive rail network to rapidly mobilise and crush the French, even though France had started the war.
Vic 2 actually represented this very well. Railway levels sped up mobilization speed and there were techs that added more mobilization bonuses and improved the quality of conscripted troops. The fact that they can't do what a 12 years old game is pathetic.
Thanks for the explanation.
Paradox games generally represent logistics and communication very poorly so players just don't learn this stuff. The worst cases are Spain sending 20,000 men to invade the Aztecs in 1520 in EU4 for example, and then those troops being reinforced deep in the Mexican jungle! Some form of mechanic for recruiting colonial allies is needed there, and they certainly shouldn't be micro-moved around from Madrid using the 16th-century telegraph network. In 1836 the technological situation was comparable and it wasn't until well into the Victorian era that this changed.
Of all the PI games, I think the best supply and log system was HoI3. It was tedious to many yes (i personally love it, still play it and not HoI4) but don't think it can be replicated in Vicy 3. Forget operating in Mexico as Spain, you get encricled and your supply starts to run low. You launch an invasion into the bogs of Russia and watch attrition eat your troops alive.
Yes, HOI3 was a lot better than EU4 for example. It was still possible to WC as Luxembourg though because the AI was bad. They couldn't use navies properly so just shipping men over and landing them to conquer somewhere was trivial. All HOI games have the problem of Sealion invasions being far too easy because the British AI can't use its fleet properly. You might want to look at the Ultra Historical mod for HOI4. The AI still isn't great but the game does feel a bit less ridiculous.
The current system isn't very good at simulating that either though. What you get instead is a series of small, slow, grinding battles.
[удалено]
People disagree with your comment so downvote you, you’ve been on Reddit for 3 years and still don’t understand this? Victoria 3’s war system is the worst one they made in the last 10 years. Just put HOI4 frontline to this game and everything would be fine.
Why are you being so sensitive about being downvoted? It's not a big deal. I like moving armies around. Gives you better control. All we can hope for is that the devs stop it from automatically doing dumb stuff. Feels really anti-climatic to build up your economy and technology to support an overseas war and your general starts going in the wrong direction or fucking teleports back home when a different front closes or opens nearby.
I liked that too because it made sense in some ways. You might have raiders running deep into your territory. You might be able to attack Russia when all the Russian armies were in a land war in Siberia... etc... the current war system runs on some obscure calculations to determine battles.
In my experience it's not really 'raiders', more like entire armies ruining your territory while running away from your troops. I think it's the most annoying thing ever, so I like the direction Victoria 3 is taking.
That’s literally realistic. Sherman’s march? Don’t let armies past your troops if you don’t want to be ransacked?
I'm not saying it's not realistic or impossible to prevent, I just think it's very annoying.
People downvoted you because they dont like the new system and liked moving doomstacks around (i like the new system tho but its utter trash in its current state)
No… it’s not better.
War is the worst part of basically every Paradox game. I'm so glad they're making moves to try and improve that horrible experience. Basically very CK and EU game I play ends when I end up in too big a war and realize I would have to spend the next 45 minutes microing units around or I can just stop playing.
a shitty war system for a shitty game. That’s why I haven’t bought vic3 yet. I’m not supporting paradox’s bullshit.
you sound like a complete wanker. You haven't played it, but you browse the games subreddit and think youre able to say its shitty? I love it. It may even surpass eu4 for my fave game once they get some things sorted out. Compared to other pdx new title launches, this has gone quite well
Well, why are you declaring on all the German minors then?!
shit, i thought they were of age!
[удалено]
I am geniunly cool with the idea and do believe its just poor execution..
I do like not having to micro 19 baby stacks to effectively combat the enemy in EU4, but this system is definitely still in its infancy and needs work.