Yeah, so long as whatever they make actually works this is a tremendous improvement. Combat in every paradox title other than HoI has always been extremely tedious and non-challenging, other than in MP where it’s only tedious. It is immersion-breaking and other than early game far more effort than it’s worth. This sounds much more interesting.
Victoria 3!!!
- Thread starter Rognvald
- Start date
So here is the dev diary on warfare, it is a long one with a lot of Dev responses(three pages worth). I am curious what others here think of this change?
I'm all for it if they manage to implement it well; never been a fan of boring micro-management, and Victoria has rather less of a focus on war than the other Paradox games, anyways. (Which is also mostly historically accurate for Victoria's time period; the 19th century was quite peaceful, although of course there is WW1 to take into account to.)
Peaceful-ish if you’re talking post-Napoleon. Even then the ACW and Crimean War were pretty sizable conflicts.
The Russo-Japanese war was quite bloody, and the Boer War a lengthy mess.
I'd say that most wars in this period would have been colonial conflicts and insurgencies (including domestic insurgencies), but there were on occasion major conflicts as well.
I'd say that most wars in this period would have been colonial conflicts and insurgencies (including domestic insurgencies), but there were on occasion major conflicts as well.
You also have the American Civil War and Taiping Rebellion during this period, which were both long and extremely violent.
Austro-Prussian war, Italian wars of independence, Danish-German war, Franco-mexican war, etc… and that’s not going into the south american mess, 19th century was a bloody thing, not peaceful in the least.
I dunno about this system, it seems fine when pitted against AI, but I am not sure this will translate well into multiplayer campaign…
I dunno about this system, it seems fine when pitted against AI, but I am not sure this will translate well into multiplayer campaign…
It seems like they're basically automating warfare, which is weird for a company that's specialized in grand strategy warfare games.
I really do not care Victoria was a economy management game. If you want war go play EU4 or Hearts of Iron
While I'm not bothered by the changes they're making to the military system, I think it's interesting with a different approach, I can't agree with a reasoning like this.
Victoria is a game about the Victorian Era. I, and I suspect a lot of paradox players, pick what game I want to play based on what time period I want to play in. Sometimes I wish EU4 had more character focus like CK2, sometimes I wish HOI4 had more of an economic focus like Vic2, but CK2 doesn't scratch my early modern itch, and Vic2 doesn't scratch my WW2 itch, so I accept that I have to make due with the systems given to me, and sometimes those systems just aren't what I wanted, and that sucks, and that feeling is valid.
Player - “I wish I didn’t have to micromanage my wars in Victoria III.”As long as the AI doesnt ruin the Warfare and does an actual good job
PDX - “We’ve let the AI take over your generals for you. Unfortunately they are all General McClellan.”
They seem to have the economy model integrated into the war game. The war materials and manpower are in the same economic system, so it seems you'll also still need to play the core gameplay of economic management to keep the war machine supplied. And of course, the manpower burned in war means you lose workers.
Not sure about the war system, especially since Paradox seems unsure in the Dev diaries; subject to change and all.
Not sure about the war system, especially since Paradox seems unsure in the Dev diaries; subject to change and all.
it's one thing if the devs add a bunch of mechanics related to logistics, war economy, supplies, equipment production etc, and another if they cut out the ''micro''(read: the actual gameplay that makes things FUN) and replace it with absolutely nothing.
Only managed to read the dev diary today and so far I am suspicious, despite not liking micromanagment. I can sort of see that system working for say WW1, although even there Imo a bit more control would be necessary to make it fun - e.g. defining fronts yourselves, making warplans (which your generals then may fail to execute as you imagined) and especially more than just three orders/stances. But my main problem is that a lot of wars during the 19th were more in line with Napoleonic warfare than with WW1: That is individual field battles and control of strongpoints, not advancing/defending along a continous frontline. To me it seem wrong to focus on such a continous frontline, while taking individual corps and armies basically out of the equation.
El_Fodedor
Banned
They are committing a terrible mistake here. They should at least make you capable to control troops using some kind of "frontline" mechanics akin to HOI4, even if they don't allow you to control every single unit.