Victoria 3!!!
- Thread starter Rognvald
- Start date
I forgot a couple of dev diaries. So here are the links to Employment and qualifications, Treasury, Standards of Living, Political Movements, and Slavery. What do people think so far?
Also, I don't want to see the new game ending up like what happened to Cyberpunk 2077 with terrible, glitchy, and skewed graphics which sounds quite strange.
So there have been a number of dev diaries. However the recent dev diary has a huge change in how war will work. I wonder what people here think of it?
It doesn’t seem like a bad change (in fact, it could be quite good if done properly), but I’d like to see more information on it first. I imagine there will be some people who like the way war is in other Paradox games who might not be though.
I feel like I can only form an opinion around it when we actually know more about it. Outside of that, not entirely sure if I like or hate the idea. I'll be disappointed if you don't see frontlines move and stuff though if you're not in direct control.
Cautiously optimistic here, I won't miss micromanaging stacks and would love a more high level strategic warfare system, which they seem to be hinting at. However, it could also go horribly wrong if implemented poorly.
They have a lot of good faith behind them from the dev diaries so far, so I think they're getting a lot of trust on this. It could potentially be a grand change, because the previous whack-a-mole system was tedious and managing massive armies was just a completely annoying chore as a major land power like Germany or Russia.
I think this will make guerilla warfare and rebel contested regions more possible but I am curious as to the implementation. The old system is bad at showing irregular fighting as stacks just directly fight.
Also they seem to imply there will be politics involved (like how you can promote certain generals to placate interest groups) so that could make the whole things interesting. Who the general is will be more important, and political opinions on the military may effect things.
Also they seem to imply there will be politics involved (like how you can promote certain generals to placate interest groups) so that could make the whole things interesting. Who the general is will be more important, and political opinions on the military may effect things.
I am very interested in this I would love if they modeled things like supply lines and irregular warfare.
Victoria 2 was rather famous for it's tedious rebellion system and also for it's rather static warfare system in general, especially in how it completely failed to represent the massive shifts in warfare that happened in the game's lategame. I've seen so many discussions over the years online on how war should be handled in an (at that time) hypothetical Victoria 3, people had a lot of ideas on how it could transition from a system more akin to the traditional paradox GSG war system to something more akin to the frontlines of heart of iron, but none of those were as radical as the changes that the dev diary seems to suggest.
Though it's all pretty vague right now, and we'll have to wait and see how they'll actually implement it, I'm very excited about some of the things that dev diary contained. It looks like it could potentially be the most realistic implementation of war in a pdx gsg yet. I love the boldness of removing units that you move yourself, if I'm controlling a government I shouldn't be micromanaging exactly where each regiment goes marching, that should be left to my general staff! It's one of those things where less player control seems like it could be more immersive, something that I've also dreamt about for a lot of other pdx games.
In general I'm just excited to see any change as radical as this to a pdx gsg, they do kind of feel like the same game in a different outfit at times, I hope they'll dare to do moves as bold as this when/if they do EU5 in the future. But I'll try to calm my hype, we still don't know how the final product will look like.
This does seem to make provinces less and less relevant though, I for one am looking forward to the day when we get a PDX game that shed provinces entirely and give us a totally free-range map where borders, towns, army placement etc can be truly dynamic.
Though it's all pretty vague right now, and we'll have to wait and see how they'll actually implement it, I'm very excited about some of the things that dev diary contained. It looks like it could potentially be the most realistic implementation of war in a pdx gsg yet. I love the boldness of removing units that you move yourself, if I'm controlling a government I shouldn't be micromanaging exactly where each regiment goes marching, that should be left to my general staff! It's one of those things where less player control seems like it could be more immersive, something that I've also dreamt about for a lot of other pdx games.
In general I'm just excited to see any change as radical as this to a pdx gsg, they do kind of feel like the same game in a different outfit at times, I hope they'll dare to do moves as bold as this when/if they do EU5 in the future. But I'll try to calm my hype, we still don't know how the final product will look like.
This does seem to make provinces less and less relevant though, I for one am looking forward to the day when we get a PDX game that shed provinces entirely and give us a totally free-range map where borders, towns, army placement etc can be truly dynamic.
Last edited:
This new warfare system will definitely be contentious but a much more realistic system is good. I like that making more dependents to represent the wounded and widowed will be a thing, but losing the ability to have control over the armies may aggravate some people if the AI is kind of stupid.
Oh it absolutely already is, lots of people in the DD thread saying this has ruined their hype for the game or that this is going to be an imperator-like failure. I get where they’re coming from, but given how little we now I’d wait for a little more details before raising the alarm.
I’m kinda looking forward to having 12 battles of the isonzo because my generalissimo is an idiot, very much part of the Victorian era experience I think.
Yea, there is a lot of doom in the thread. My opinion, is that we can't really know for sure yet. It could be great or it could be terrible but right now we just don't know. That said, not having to do whack-a-mole rebels is great.
I want to hate my McClellan
I’m certainly willing to give the benefit of the doubt before casting judgement. It was pretty easy to cheese the AI a lot of the time; like using the straits in N. Ireland to aggro a British force into attacking before you seal off said strait with a navy and slaughter the Brits thanks to the crossing penalty. Or just invading China when you have machine guns researched.
Am I the only one here that thinks the new warfare system just makes sense? Victoria has always been about economics, so tying warfare to economics through supply lines management is a good choice - Bismarck's ghost knows that even just managing the diplomatic and economic side of the game ought to come with a honorary degree. 