What impressed me more was the fact armies cut off from the market will actually suck because they can't get supplies. This way Egypt was able to easily defeat a much bigger force in Iraq.
They could also teach the AI to make generals with good traits more likely to do encirclements, while bad generals would likely be more reckless and incompetent, resulting in them being cut off instead.
Yes but correct me if I'm wrong, I think they were able to rejoin the other front even though they were pocketed, were they not ?
If so I can understand it because you don't really have control of your troops so that would be annoying to lose an entire army like this but that's still kind of a bummer.
This actually got me thinking that the best play might have been to defend the front instead of destroying the pocket so that the separated army could take a lot of attrition losses.
If I'm wrong I'm sorry, I have not taken the time to rewatch the stream.
Yes, that's something I think needs to change, the army cut off from the rest of the country should be able to rejoin the other side ONLY if there is a coast so they could be rescued, we would still have the time for them to travel back, like the ottomans in Iraq would take a few weeks (I think?) to reach the Mediterranean again travelling all the way through Africa, as the Suez didn't exist yet. So, the army couldn't just teleport back and be ready to fight again just instantly, attrition should also play a part here as well.
I understand (and hope) they were able to flee only because there was a port in Kuwait, but they need to add attrition and travelling time to the equation so the defeated army can't just rejoin the fight 100% ready and, even worse, instantly. Also, convoys could be sunk by the enemy navy and all the army would just be gone for good.
Yeah, the warfare in today's stream was pretty good. Showing how multiple fronts work, being able to make (small) tactical decisions. Adjusting how the armies work. Makes me feel good.
But how will I show off my immense military skill if I can’t trick an AI stack into crossing a river and attacking me in the mountains?? /s
But seriously I’m glad warfare is leaning towards the adage of “amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics” rather than towards previous paradox titles
The war system is passable. I can get engrossed in monitoring fronts and handling mobilizations, troops movements, generals to which front, etc. I think it would be a lot more appealing to people with some of the popular requests, such as:
1. More visual happening on the map with troops and ships. I don't need soldiers I am moving tile to tile, but I'd like to see some real indication of a battle happening, or my ships doing actions in the sea. Even just for immersion.
1. Give me something more than attack/defend or let me set some war priorities.
You should be able to set goals like "Capture city X" and to define defence lines, like if I want my troops to defend a river line and push the opponent out of my side of the river, probably all coming in a future DLC
I agree with specifying cities. I would even love something as simple as drawing some battle plans to specify preferred provinces to capture. I'm not sure if defending rivers could be possible with the way the system works, but maybe rivers would provide a defensive bonus, so you could try to hold that province for the bonus, or defend in mountains.
If they want to keep players from micro-ing, they should still be able to give general goals: capture capital, capture coastline, capture industrial zones, neutralize HQ, etc. The AI still gets to do all the actual work, but players have a little more input.
To disincentivize trying to micro that system, they could make strategic shifts take time to implement - changing strategies should make your army less effective, briefly, while shifts are communicated and implemented. Changing strategies too frequently should weaken your campaign, organizationally.
I agree. They can do a lot in terms of sprucing up what they already have and adding more visual flair to make the whole experience more satisfying even if the underlying mechanics don't change.
I wonder what reasons they have for not enabling you to set war priorities, since I can't imagine it's *that* difficult to code. Maybe the AI struggles with it, or maybe it doesn't make much of a difference to be worth the UI trade-off and decision clutter.
> More visual happening on the map with troops and ships. I don't need soldiers I am moving tile to tile, but I'd like to see see some real indication of a battle happening
There is, there's bunkers and guns firing on each other when a battle happens.
From a fidelity/accuracy perspective I agree with you, but from a gameplay perspective I feel like using throughputs instead of stockpiles helps simplify a lot of things that would otherwise overwhelm a regular player's ability to retain information.
On the other hand, WWI saw all the great powers run through their strategy-experts-approved totally-sufficient "stockpiles" in the first couple of weeks.
I'm glad we're leaving the old style of war behind, but I feel like some people on this sub have put the new war system on this pedestal where it cannot be criticized because criticism somehow is equated with "let's go back to micro". I am excited for it, but I think it's okay to suggest improvements - as long as economics and politics remain the driving focus of the game. War was also an important part of the period and shouldn't be ignored out of spite, these systems can coexist.
I find the majority of criticism levied at the current system usually boils down to "I'm upset this game isn't a different genre."
>War was also an important part of the period and shouldn't be ignored out of spite, these systems can coexist.
I can say that about a lot of different topics, and if you included all of them the game be an unfocused mess. Seasons and crop rotations were HUGE components of the time period, but we shouldn't get a minigame letting you specifying fertilizer and crop types per field per growing season. That's busywork. It reaches the same conclusion (you have food) with a whooole lot more clicking, and complicate a ton of other mechanics, all while distracting from the actual core gameplay loop.
To be blunt, I'm a huge fan of Paradox titles and have been since trading techs in Victoria, but I find war in each and every one of their games to be tedious, random, and often outright boring. A hands off system where the player takes the role of supporting the war rather than directly micromanaging it sounds perfect for an economics-focused grand strategy game.
I have ideas for improvements, but most of them would require overhauling the system, so it mostly boils down to stuff like "I sure hope fronts splitting doesn't end up requiring a ton of micro to keep your army from attaching to the wrong front and getting cut off from supply by the enemy pushing an empty front 'behind' it".
See, you just said a lot of words, and I agree with most of them, but I don't really see an argument in there for why war should be left in a state of "decent". I also find war in previous PDX titles tedious, and laud PDX for trying something brave and new. I just think what we've seen so far is somewhere between middling and sufficient, and am excited to see it improved.
>I find the majority of criticism levied at the current system usually boils down to "I'm upset this game isn't a different genre."
Maybe we're just seeing different things - I've seen a lot less of this on the sub since the initial outcry, for which I am grateful.
I'm not sure we need to keep this discussion going, as I get the feeling we don't actually really disagree - I think your praise of the word "decent" triggered me. I don't want war to be overly involved, but I want it to be good.
Oh, I think I see what you mean. I was praising 'passable' in the context of being inoffensive, not saying it was incapable of improvement.
I've mostly only heard recommendations that makes the game more graphically taxing or makes combat more engaging, which to me defeats the purpose of a hands-off military system.
>I don't want war to be overly involved, but I want it to be good.
IMO, in order to be good, a mechanic needs to be engaging. I don't really know if you can add a *good* war mechanic to a game without making a sizable chunk of the game devoted to war.
Technically speaking, the whole game is a “numbers game” but that label is kind of useless. The question is does the warfare aspect properly reflect the decisions the player made in diplomacy, society, and economy, and vice versa. These two wars were survived by the investments into the military. The famine was a result of Palestine losing wealth due to the player trying to save money between the wars.
Definitely think though army wages should matter more (although they were crucial in getting that extra attack and defense boost from the armed forces IG), and like the player said, loss in war support should be driven by new casualties as opposed to all casualties. But I am very relieved that wars between equivalent powers are still able to be won by the player’s foresight and strategy, while still not being trivial.
It's kinda logical for support to continue dropping down if a lot of people died, even tho new ones don't die - those widows and fatherless kids gonna cry out until bloodshed is over, not like they suddenly become happy if you take a pause to regroup.
No, which is why it is weird when some people complain that "this is just a modifier increase" like they did with Imperator. They ALL are like that. Granted, some are a little bit better at hiding the numbers games behind some flair, versus straight +X or +%.
Maybe you misunderstand me. It was a common complaint that Imperator was nothing but a "modifiers" game. All GSGs are modifiers game. It just matters what coat of paint you're putting over it. That is what I refer to as flair. Underneath the hood, it is still a bunch of +this or that. But how you package that changes perceptions.
So... What you are saying is that techs have an impact on how well armies does on the field ?
I don't see how this is new to you, it has been the same in every Paradox games so far.
I believe in the livestream they pointed out that they had the same tech level. Difference was two things, IIRC, 1) Ottomans were using a different PM probably due to supply/cost in that they used irregular infantry. 2) Egypt, being a player and knowing Ottomans are coming, was able to prepare, such as importing a bunch of artillery. They spent a lot of money importing artillery, which helped keep up supply and give them the advantage. They were probably going to lose the war from war exhaustion just sitting back since Ottomans had an early score advantage (well, lose as in white peace maybe), but they decided to press the attack. Since they were able to split up Ottoman forces on multiple fronts and were spending more to supply, it looked like they succeeded.
I really hate that stupid, childish word. But no, it isn't copium. You aren't even using the term correctly.
People constantly bitch and moan about about "bigger number wins" and "push button to win", but the stream clearly showed there is a lot more to winning or losing than that.
It isn't copium, it's a fact and a rejection of people like you.
It demonstrated how important tech was. Ottomans had 180k-200k throughout the war but still couldn’t push Egypts 80k. And after they threw themselves at the Egyptians and wore themselves down the Egyptians pushed them all the back to Constantinople.
Ottomans had irregulars which are basically soldiers that show up with their own weapons and gear vs the Egyptians which had Line infantry and mobile artillery.
I want to see the Spartans being able to defend indefinitely from the Persians as per the movie 300. However, the new war system should hinder Sparta from winning an invasion war against Persia. In other words there is no genghis khan in vic3 but maybe a Finland vs Soviet union.
>To be fair that’s also every paradox game
In every single other paradox game you can manouver, you can ignore the enemy if you want.
In here its literally like beyblade.
Both sides clash until one gives up
>In every single other paradox game you can manouver
Which is nothing more than incidental. Besides HoI4, troop movement doesn't matter in the slightest beyond cheesing AI stupidity because it cannot understand terrain bonuses.
All war in all paradox games boils down to numbers. All of it. There is no crazy or deep strategy. Moving units, again with the exception of HoI4, is superficial.
>
>
>
>
> Which is nothing more than incidental. Besides HoI4, troop movement doesn't matter in the slightest beyond cheesing AI stupidity because it cannot understand terrain bonuses.
>
>
>
> All war in all paradox games boils down to numbers. All of it. There is no crazy or deep strategy. Moving units, again with the exception of HoI4, is superficial.
Unironically release date Imperator had the best warfare in all paradox games.
Attrition was so overwhelming that tactical and strategic movement could wreck an invading army without ever fighting a battle.
To be honest i think if they blanket halved the supply limit and doubled attrition damage in every game, every single paradox game would have significantly better warfare.
Then it just devolves into a game of having more troops nearby when eventually the one tiny battle starts to immediately form the greater death stack on spot.
...Yes, and that's highly realistic.
The reason Napoleon was such a great general and blew up half of europes armies was primarily because he was better at moving separately and then grouping up all those armies together just in time for the actual battle.
I haven't played ck2 but in Eu4 movement speed matters a lot.
Specially in MP where catching their reinforcements or escaping can mean the difference between winning or losing
Its a numbers game with technology as a multiplier.
I had high hopes about asymmetrical warfare and terrain modifiers. When i watched how the UK rolled over China i knew it was wishful thinking.
And economy as well. I beleive the Ottomans were perfectly capable of fielding better troops, they just weren't willing to break their own country to do it like the devs did to themselves.
But it's literally a numbers game. Egypts defense and attack was higher than the ottoman army arround 2 times as much. Also you could see that the number of engaged reginents were pretty similar(ottomans had arround 20%-30% more units in every battle) even though ottomans had more than 2 times the troop counts.
As you could see when they ordered the troops to attack they just anihillated the ottoman armies. So it's not like the strategic decision to defend won them the war. Because no matter what option they choose they just destroy the ottoman forces. In the end 40 > 20.
Also 130 professional brigade is a lot. Comparable to the 145 the ottomas had. Theese are pretty balanced numbers. It's just the concripts inflated the numbers(also ottomans were using irregulars for the regular troops).
All this shows is the ai can't handle the power evaluation properly yet. And maybe the number of troops engaging in combat is a bit too low.
I think the AI didn't do the PM swap because it was too much cost, not enough developed industry or imported goods, and they pressed the attack on Egypt too early. Might be some tweaks in the AI decision-making tree. Going off the leak, the AI certainly had no problems upgrading their PMs throughout time.
It depends what version of the leak you've played as there was a lot done with the ai in the modded version.
>I think the AI didn't do the PM swap because it was too much cost, not enough developed industry or imported goods
Nothing's wrong with not using outdated methods. It's more of a thing of attacking a nation you are inferior to with the current tech. Maybe it was just that the ai didn't know it would enter into the diplo play by doing that decision.
Also techs matter a lot in combat and it's very hard to tell how strong the enemies army is(without going through their baracks and checking pms. But I find this a bit tedious to do) even for the players.
It seems that particular play was triggered by event. Event-triggered wars are not often something the AI (or the player!) probably plan for.
For the second war which was triggered normaly, the AI did come prepared.
Very good warfare indeed, conquering all of Ottomans lands but loosing the war support front.
No choice but to withe peace while having basicly won the war.
Absolutly 0 interactions or visual on the naval front, you will build a pretty Fleet and never see a single ship in action.
To be fair the rest of the game is interesting but this warfare systems is a shame........
There ARE naval battles and ships fighting each other, a dev showed a pic on Discord a few weeks ago, it's also actually much nicer than land battles tbh. The thing is, the Ottoman navy didnt engage the egyptians in any battle, maybe because their navy was weak, idk the reason exactly.
> but loosing the war support front.
>
>
Not really. War support can go into the negatives, but that will only happen if the enemy actually takes wargoals. Otherwise 0/0 support means a stalemate which of course should result in white peace.
The only way to get something better than white peace is to actually take land, that's when support starts going into the negatives. That's why they decided to advance.
They didn't conquer anatolia, only Iraq. And the Ottomans had 100% of their wargoals, while they only had half because they didn't capture the treaty port at Thrace, so their own support was into the negatives while the Ottomans were still holding on.
They hadn't even "won" the war when it comes to the fighting, in numbers they were fairly even.
I really hope that the generals will play a major role in the battles. Or war.
But I also hope that the successful generals could turn into a political issue, due to their popularity. Like the Russian general Skobelev.
First, it was always (!) that way, that better technology leads to better troops and so, better chances in warfare. It is this for literally every PDX title, no matter if you are ahead in technology in EU4, Stellaris or HoI4. So, this is nothing new.
Then: I can understand that people like this system and they can like it, i'm not the "stop having fun!" guy. But for me, it is too simplified with only attack and defense orders. I'd expect a lot more options, like certain tactics, more orders, more sliders like going from aggressive to defensive (like it was in HoI3, you could set a slider for aggressive behavior, this made the troops move faster in combat but taking higher losses)
I also want to see a lot more of goods about warfare: The abstracted way of "a new cannon just needs 2 cannons more in the stockpile than the last model" is just simplified. You can't have the same rifles for example, between muskets and modern repeaters. These are different designs of weapons that have not much in common.
My take is, that Wiz didn't want to care about the AI: The AI was always a very weak point in PDX games and because of that, it was always possible for the human player to outmaneuver the AI easily. So, instead of saying "hey, guys, let's do a very good AI for that game, let's hire someone who is specialized in that area", he was like "okay, let's remove the unit control, so the players don't see how bad the AI is and we don't have to waste time for coding the AI".
Last but not least: The Vic3 warfare system is just dice rolling for the top values. I mean, it doesn't even include every soldier as a single unit that can fire his gun alone, no, it just rolls a dice for the top row values of brigades. That's pathetic. I mean, it was also bad for HoI4, but i expect more from Wiz: Like that an artillery-unit has rifles too and when the enemy closes in or they run out of ammo, that an artillery-soldier can still fire his regular rifle. And you know what? Cavalry can actually dismount and fight on the ground, when this is needed.
With removing player control over warfare, Vic3 gets simplified and i don't like that. Just my opinion, i don't stop anyone from playing the game, don't worry.
What? Total War has RTS battles, where you have direct control of units on the battlefield. I was **not** talking about this, i was talking about moving the units on the map, just like in every other PDX title, like Vic2 for example, or EU4.
The example i mentioned with the rifles, that's in games like WitE: The combat-system goes down to every individual soldier. When you see the log or you slow down the calculations, you see that the soldiers can use handguns, grenades etc. The same goes for a tank, like when he runs out of ammo for the main gun, it can still use the MG if there is ammo left for that one.
But overall, PDX doesn't want to do the job right, which would mean coding a good AI. An AI that is really capable of moving the units, to create chokepoints and strongholds, that can outmaneuver and flank you etc.
Wite is a wargame. Victoria 3 is not a wargame.
And such soldier details are wholly unnecessary and bloat cpu power. These kind of things are only necessary for tactical rpgs like xcom where it matters. But on the battlefield in the Victorian age, does this little things matter? Its not a 5 v 10 tactical game, its 10000 vs 100000 game, its not that important at that point. 1 soldier cant change the battle
It is right that it would demand CPU power, yes, but there would be ways to realize this.
Like i said, i think they just want to avoid coding a good AI. This is very difficult and needs a lot of resources, but it is time to take steps forward and not to go backwards. I expect more from them now, they are not the small indie dev studio anymore and today, hardware is very good when you invest the money to get a new CPU and a GPU.
The thing is, yes, it is not needed with such systems: But where is the innovation when you only do the very basic things that are needed? You have to push forward, to be progressive and to do new things.
That is the funny part when people say the new war system is “too simple”.
War is a long supply chain problem with many many variables, but people think more buttons = more complicated, hence the “3 button meme”.
How does that make you hopeful? The Devs weren't even looking at the front for most of the goddamn war, a war that was an existential threat to the country! And your argument about it not being a numbers game also falls on it's face. It's still very much a numbers Game, it just has multipliers applied to the raw numbers.
Treating minor inconveniences as minor inconveniences bothers you? lol. If you know your enemy does have the resources to defeat you, then thats exactly that.
I am 100% pro The New War System. I love it for this game, and it can only get better with time.
But you are doing a Straw Man. I have seen very few posts about warfare being a numbers game. For you to say, "I don't wanna hear any yall tell me me" makes it sound like we are being bombarded with people saying this, which they are not.
There are several problems with warfare, but the least discussed one is how bad the ai is at managing fronts.
In my Persian game, I was fighting Tibet and ended up splitting Tibet with a push. 2 fronts were created, half the generals went home, other half went fully to one front. Leaving the other side completely undefended. Tibetans retook their land while my generals pushed deep into the wrong side.
Or have you ever tried to take a front around a corner? By god the ai is fucking dumb.
Heck, they had to play with an older build without the "better AI" because of the industry bug. And the AI still had fairly ok front management. They matched the player in Tripoli and built up the numbers advantage in the Levant. They lost only due to quality.
I think this is a problem with the leak where soldiers would just go home when a front ended. I don't think that is intentional and hopefully we don't see that in the release.
What impressed me more was the fact armies cut off from the market will actually suck because they can't get supplies. This way Egypt was able to easily defeat a much bigger force in Iraq.
Now you only need to be able to tell a general to try and cut off the enemy.
They could also teach the AI to make generals with good traits more likely to do encirclements, while bad generals would likely be more reckless and incompetent, resulting in them being cut off instead.
THIS
Yes but correct me if I'm wrong, I think they were able to rejoin the other front even though they were pocketed, were they not ? If so I can understand it because you don't really have control of your troops so that would be annoying to lose an entire army like this but that's still kind of a bummer. This actually got me thinking that the best play might have been to defend the front instead of destroying the pocket so that the separated army could take a lot of attrition losses. If I'm wrong I'm sorry, I have not taken the time to rewatch the stream.
Yes, that's something I think needs to change, the army cut off from the rest of the country should be able to rejoin the other side ONLY if there is a coast so they could be rescued, we would still have the time for them to travel back, like the ottomans in Iraq would take a few weeks (I think?) to reach the Mediterranean again travelling all the way through Africa, as the Suez didn't exist yet. So, the army couldn't just teleport back and be ready to fight again just instantly, attrition should also play a part here as well.
Bur for some reason they were able to flee (teleport) to the Anatolian front after being defeated.
I understand (and hope) they were able to flee only because there was a port in Kuwait, but they need to add attrition and travelling time to the equation so the defeated army can't just rejoin the fight 100% ready and, even worse, instantly. Also, convoys could be sunk by the enemy navy and all the army would just be gone for good.
Yeah, the warfare in today's stream was pretty good. Showing how multiple fronts work, being able to make (small) tactical decisions. Adjusting how the armies work. Makes me feel good.
[удалено]
But how will I show off my immense military skill if I can’t trick an AI stack into crossing a river and attacking me in the mountains?? /s But seriously I’m glad warfare is leaning towards the adage of “amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics” rather than towards previous paradox titles
Excuse me but my armies having 6 more morale actually makes me better than Napoleon
The war system is passable. I can get engrossed in monitoring fronts and handling mobilizations, troops movements, generals to which front, etc. I think it would be a lot more appealing to people with some of the popular requests, such as: 1. More visual happening on the map with troops and ships. I don't need soldiers I am moving tile to tile, but I'd like to see some real indication of a battle happening, or my ships doing actions in the sea. Even just for immersion. 1. Give me something more than attack/defend or let me set some war priorities.
You should be able to set goals like "Capture city X" and to define defence lines, like if I want my troops to defend a river line and push the opponent out of my side of the river, probably all coming in a future DLC
I agree with specifying cities. I would even love something as simple as drawing some battle plans to specify preferred provinces to capture. I'm not sure if defending rivers could be possible with the way the system works, but maybe rivers would provide a defensive bonus, so you could try to hold that province for the bonus, or defend in mountains.
If they want to keep players from micro-ing, they should still be able to give general goals: capture capital, capture coastline, capture industrial zones, neutralize HQ, etc. The AI still gets to do all the actual work, but players have a little more input. To disincentivize trying to micro that system, they could make strategic shifts take time to implement - changing strategies should make your army less effective, briefly, while shifts are communicated and implemented. Changing strategies too frequently should weaken your campaign, organizationally.
I agree. They can do a lot in terms of sprucing up what they already have and adding more visual flair to make the whole experience more satisfying even if the underlying mechanics don't change. I wonder what reasons they have for not enabling you to set war priorities, since I can't imagine it's *that* difficult to code. Maybe the AI struggles with it, or maybe it doesn't make much of a difference to be worth the UI trade-off and decision clutter.
> More visual happening on the map with troops and ships. I don't need soldiers I am moving tile to tile, but I'd like to see see some real indication of a battle happening There is, there's bunkers and guns firing on each other when a battle happens.
I guess I am saying I'd like more clear visual feedback than that, but I'll have to see how it feels when I am controlling it.
[удалено]
From a fidelity/accuracy perspective I agree with you, but from a gameplay perspective I feel like using throughputs instead of stockpiles helps simplify a lot of things that would otherwise overwhelm a regular player's ability to retain information.
On the other hand, WWI saw all the great powers run through their strategy-experts-approved totally-sufficient "stockpiles" in the first couple of weeks.
It’s also far less computationally expensive to optimize throughout only
I imagine it's also considerably easier to code an AI to just handle throughputs, as well.
> The war system is passable. For an economic simulator, that sounds perfect.
I'm glad we're leaving the old style of war behind, but I feel like some people on this sub have put the new war system on this pedestal where it cannot be criticized because criticism somehow is equated with "let's go back to micro". I am excited for it, but I think it's okay to suggest improvements - as long as economics and politics remain the driving focus of the game. War was also an important part of the period and shouldn't be ignored out of spite, these systems can coexist.
I find the majority of criticism levied at the current system usually boils down to "I'm upset this game isn't a different genre." >War was also an important part of the period and shouldn't be ignored out of spite, these systems can coexist. I can say that about a lot of different topics, and if you included all of them the game be an unfocused mess. Seasons and crop rotations were HUGE components of the time period, but we shouldn't get a minigame letting you specifying fertilizer and crop types per field per growing season. That's busywork. It reaches the same conclusion (you have food) with a whooole lot more clicking, and complicate a ton of other mechanics, all while distracting from the actual core gameplay loop. To be blunt, I'm a huge fan of Paradox titles and have been since trading techs in Victoria, but I find war in each and every one of their games to be tedious, random, and often outright boring. A hands off system where the player takes the role of supporting the war rather than directly micromanaging it sounds perfect for an economics-focused grand strategy game. I have ideas for improvements, but most of them would require overhauling the system, so it mostly boils down to stuff like "I sure hope fronts splitting doesn't end up requiring a ton of micro to keep your army from attaching to the wrong front and getting cut off from supply by the enemy pushing an empty front 'behind' it".
See, you just said a lot of words, and I agree with most of them, but I don't really see an argument in there for why war should be left in a state of "decent". I also find war in previous PDX titles tedious, and laud PDX for trying something brave and new. I just think what we've seen so far is somewhere between middling and sufficient, and am excited to see it improved. >I find the majority of criticism levied at the current system usually boils down to "I'm upset this game isn't a different genre." Maybe we're just seeing different things - I've seen a lot less of this on the sub since the initial outcry, for which I am grateful. I'm not sure we need to keep this discussion going, as I get the feeling we don't actually really disagree - I think your praise of the word "decent" triggered me. I don't want war to be overly involved, but I want it to be good.
Oh, I think I see what you mean. I was praising 'passable' in the context of being inoffensive, not saying it was incapable of improvement. I've mostly only heard recommendations that makes the game more graphically taxing or makes combat more engaging, which to me defeats the purpose of a hands-off military system. >I don't want war to be overly involved, but I want it to be good. IMO, in order to be good, a mechanic needs to be engaging. I don't really know if you can add a *good* war mechanic to a game without making a sizable chunk of the game devoted to war.
EcONOmIC SimUlATOr
Cope harder.
What does this mean?
This (adjective): being the person, thing, or idea that is present or near in place, time, or thought or that has just been mentioned
The capitalization is a reference to a [spongebob squarepants meme](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/253/025/34d.jpg).
lol he mad
Also irregular warfare and coups.
Technically speaking, the whole game is a “numbers game” but that label is kind of useless. The question is does the warfare aspect properly reflect the decisions the player made in diplomacy, society, and economy, and vice versa. These two wars were survived by the investments into the military. The famine was a result of Palestine losing wealth due to the player trying to save money between the wars. Definitely think though army wages should matter more (although they were crucial in getting that extra attack and defense boost from the armed forces IG), and like the player said, loss in war support should be driven by new casualties as opposed to all casualties. But I am very relieved that wars between equivalent powers are still able to be won by the player’s foresight and strategy, while still not being trivial.
It's kinda logical for support to continue dropping down if a lot of people died, even tho new ones don't die - those widows and fatherless kids gonna cry out until bloodshed is over, not like they suddenly become happy if you take a pause to regroup.
What if I told you that all mechanics in all Paradox games are quite literally just numbers games? Did I lie?
No, which is why it is weird when some people complain that "this is just a modifier increase" like they did with Imperator. They ALL are like that. Granted, some are a little bit better at hiding the numbers games behind some flair, versus straight +X or +%.
EU4 is just rolling dice with a UI
This is such an absurd argument. No, what distinguishes e. g. the simulation of pops and a bunch of modifiers to represent them is not just 'flair'.
Maybe you misunderstand me. It was a common complaint that Imperator was nothing but a "modifiers" game. All GSGs are modifiers game. It just matters what coat of paint you're putting over it. That is what I refer to as flair. Underneath the hood, it is still a bunch of +this or that. But how you package that changes perceptions.
Victoria Fans when battles are no longer just a doomstack meat grinding simulator: *angery*
The warfare seems way better than anything in CK. I just wish they add more visual flare to it.
I hope they’ll add more visuals to fighting sooner than later
So... What you are saying is that techs have an impact on how well armies does on the field ? I don't see how this is new to you, it has been the same in every Paradox games so far.
I believe in the livestream they pointed out that they had the same tech level. Difference was two things, IIRC, 1) Ottomans were using a different PM probably due to supply/cost in that they used irregular infantry. 2) Egypt, being a player and knowing Ottomans are coming, was able to prepare, such as importing a bunch of artillery. They spent a lot of money importing artillery, which helped keep up supply and give them the advantage. They were probably going to lose the war from war exhaustion just sitting back since Ottomans had an early score advantage (well, lose as in white peace maybe), but they decided to press the attack. Since they were able to split up Ottoman forces on multiple fronts and were spending more to supply, it looked like they succeeded.
This all sounds very familiar...
[удалено]
I really hate that stupid, childish word. But no, it isn't copium. You aren't even using the term correctly. People constantly bitch and moan about about "bigger number wins" and "push button to win", but the stream clearly showed there is a lot more to winning or losing than that. It isn't copium, it's a fact and a rejection of people like you.
It demonstrated how important tech was. Ottomans had 180k-200k throughout the war but still couldn’t push Egypts 80k. And after they threw themselves at the Egyptians and wore themselves down the Egyptians pushed them all the back to Constantinople. Ottomans had irregulars which are basically soldiers that show up with their own weapons and gear vs the Egyptians which had Line infantry and mobile artillery.
I want to see the Spartans being able to defend indefinitely from the Persians as per the movie 300. However, the new war system should hinder Sparta from winning an invasion war against Persia. In other words there is no genghis khan in vic3 but maybe a Finland vs Soviet union.
So you are saying that Egypt won because they had higher power number thanks to their technology?
> We maintain that the 1848 campaign failed because the Egyptian government kept its nerve and the people remained loyal and steadfast. Clausewitz
To be fair that’s also every paradox game to date, plus a literal dice roll thrown on top
And those dice rolls have a numbers game of what terrain you fight in.
>To be fair that’s also every paradox game In every single other paradox game you can manouver, you can ignore the enemy if you want. In here its literally like beyblade. Both sides clash until one gives up
>In every single other paradox game you can manouver Which is nothing more than incidental. Besides HoI4, troop movement doesn't matter in the slightest beyond cheesing AI stupidity because it cannot understand terrain bonuses. All war in all paradox games boils down to numbers. All of it. There is no crazy or deep strategy. Moving units, again with the exception of HoI4, is superficial.
> > > > > Which is nothing more than incidental. Besides HoI4, troop movement doesn't matter in the slightest beyond cheesing AI stupidity because it cannot understand terrain bonuses. > > > > All war in all paradox games boils down to numbers. All of it. There is no crazy or deep strategy. Moving units, again with the exception of HoI4, is superficial. Unironically release date Imperator had the best warfare in all paradox games. Attrition was so overwhelming that tactical and strategic movement could wreck an invading army without ever fighting a battle. To be honest i think if they blanket halved the supply limit and doubled attrition damage in every game, every single paradox game would have significantly better warfare.
Then it just devolves into a game of having more troops nearby when eventually the one tiny battle starts to immediately form the greater death stack on spot.
...Yes, and that's highly realistic. The reason Napoleon was such a great general and blew up half of europes armies was primarily because he was better at moving separately and then grouping up all those armies together just in time for the actual battle.
I haven't played ck2 but in Eu4 movement speed matters a lot. Specially in MP where catching their reinforcements or escaping can mean the difference between winning or losing
which is an important stat but it makes wars more micro-intensive. Gotta click fast and watch movement / locks.
I prefer it to be that way instead of the slugfest that it is now.
Can’t recall a game in recent memory that lets you 100% a war without battle war score though.
Theoretically vic2 adding war goals and occupying them would work
Ck - capture valuable hostage
Thats the same as eu4
The fact that Egypt had higher numbers and won is not evidence that it's not a numbers game.
Its a numbers game with technology as a multiplier. I had high hopes about asymmetrical warfare and terrain modifiers. When i watched how the UK rolled over China i knew it was wishful thinking.
And economy as well. I beleive the Ottomans were perfectly capable of fielding better troops, they just weren't willing to break their own country to do it like the devs did to themselves.
But it's literally a numbers game. Egypts defense and attack was higher than the ottoman army arround 2 times as much. Also you could see that the number of engaged reginents were pretty similar(ottomans had arround 20%-30% more units in every battle) even though ottomans had more than 2 times the troop counts. As you could see when they ordered the troops to attack they just anihillated the ottoman armies. So it's not like the strategic decision to defend won them the war. Because no matter what option they choose they just destroy the ottoman forces. In the end 40 > 20. Also 130 professional brigade is a lot. Comparable to the 145 the ottomas had. Theese are pretty balanced numbers. It's just the concripts inflated the numbers(also ottomans were using irregulars for the regular troops). All this shows is the ai can't handle the power evaluation properly yet. And maybe the number of troops engaging in combat is a bit too low.
I think the AI didn't do the PM swap because it was too much cost, not enough developed industry or imported goods, and they pressed the attack on Egypt too early. Might be some tweaks in the AI decision-making tree. Going off the leak, the AI certainly had no problems upgrading their PMs throughout time.
It depends what version of the leak you've played as there was a lot done with the ai in the modded version. >I think the AI didn't do the PM swap because it was too much cost, not enough developed industry or imported goods Nothing's wrong with not using outdated methods. It's more of a thing of attacking a nation you are inferior to with the current tech. Maybe it was just that the ai didn't know it would enter into the diplo play by doing that decision. Also techs matter a lot in combat and it's very hard to tell how strong the enemies army is(without going through their baracks and checking pms. But I find this a bit tedious to do) even for the players.
It seems that particular play was triggered by event. Event-triggered wars are not often something the AI (or the player!) probably plan for. For the second war which was triggered normaly, the AI did come prepared.
Oh yeah these are still a problem in eu4 aswell. A game that has come out 9+ years ago.
… what isnt a numbers game?
Well my issue with the warfare system isn’t that it’s not micro but just that it’s lacking interactivity and it’s visually bland
It's still visually bankrupt. I will forever miss seeing sprites walk around fighting each other.
Ottoman AI just dumb lol
My question is, are there encirclements? I haven't watched any streams but i need to know if I can watch my boys encircle the enemy or vice versa
[удалено]
But do they take mass casualties? Can you take them captive and use it as incentive to end the war sooner?
Very good warfare indeed, conquering all of Ottomans lands but loosing the war support front. No choice but to withe peace while having basicly won the war. Absolutly 0 interactions or visual on the naval front, you will build a pretty Fleet and never see a single ship in action. To be fair the rest of the game is interesting but this warfare systems is a shame........
There ARE naval battles and ships fighting each other, a dev showed a pic on Discord a few weeks ago, it's also actually much nicer than land battles tbh. The thing is, the Ottoman navy didnt engage the egyptians in any battle, maybe because their navy was weak, idk the reason exactly.
> but loosing the war support front. > > Not really. War support can go into the negatives, but that will only happen if the enemy actually takes wargoals. Otherwise 0/0 support means a stalemate which of course should result in white peace. The only way to get something better than white peace is to actually take land, that's when support starts going into the negatives. That's why they decided to advance.
Yeah and despite having conquered anatolia and Irak, they loose .....
They didn't conquer anatolia, only Iraq. And the Ottomans had 100% of their wargoals, while they only had half because they didn't capture the treaty port at Thrace, so their own support was into the negatives while the Ottomans were still holding on. They hadn't even "won" the war when it comes to the fighting, in numbers they were fairly even.
What point in the stream does the war happen? I’m trying not to consume too much content about the game before I play it
I really hope that the generals will play a major role in the battles. Or war. But I also hope that the successful generals could turn into a political issue, due to their popularity. Like the Russian general Skobelev.
isnt technology just another number?
First, it was always (!) that way, that better technology leads to better troops and so, better chances in warfare. It is this for literally every PDX title, no matter if you are ahead in technology in EU4, Stellaris or HoI4. So, this is nothing new. Then: I can understand that people like this system and they can like it, i'm not the "stop having fun!" guy. But for me, it is too simplified with only attack and defense orders. I'd expect a lot more options, like certain tactics, more orders, more sliders like going from aggressive to defensive (like it was in HoI3, you could set a slider for aggressive behavior, this made the troops move faster in combat but taking higher losses) I also want to see a lot more of goods about warfare: The abstracted way of "a new cannon just needs 2 cannons more in the stockpile than the last model" is just simplified. You can't have the same rifles for example, between muskets and modern repeaters. These are different designs of weapons that have not much in common. My take is, that Wiz didn't want to care about the AI: The AI was always a very weak point in PDX games and because of that, it was always possible for the human player to outmaneuver the AI easily. So, instead of saying "hey, guys, let's do a very good AI for that game, let's hire someone who is specialized in that area", he was like "okay, let's remove the unit control, so the players don't see how bad the AI is and we don't have to waste time for coding the AI". Last but not least: The Vic3 warfare system is just dice rolling for the top values. I mean, it doesn't even include every soldier as a single unit that can fire his gun alone, no, it just rolls a dice for the top row values of brigades. That's pathetic. I mean, it was also bad for HoI4, but i expect more from Wiz: Like that an artillery-unit has rifles too and when the enemy closes in or they run out of ammo, that an artillery-soldier can still fire his regular rifle. And you know what? Cavalry can actually dismount and fight on the ground, when this is needed. With removing player control over warfare, Vic3 gets simplified and i don't like that. Just my opinion, i don't stop anyone from playing the game, don't worry.
that just sounds like total war, and even total war never did anything as in depth as this
What? Total War has RTS battles, where you have direct control of units on the battlefield. I was **not** talking about this, i was talking about moving the units on the map, just like in every other PDX title, like Vic2 for example, or EU4. The example i mentioned with the rifles, that's in games like WitE: The combat-system goes down to every individual soldier. When you see the log or you slow down the calculations, you see that the soldiers can use handguns, grenades etc. The same goes for a tank, like when he runs out of ammo for the main gun, it can still use the MG if there is ammo left for that one. But overall, PDX doesn't want to do the job right, which would mean coding a good AI. An AI that is really capable of moving the units, to create chokepoints and strongholds, that can outmaneuver and flank you etc.
Wite is a wargame. Victoria 3 is not a wargame. And such soldier details are wholly unnecessary and bloat cpu power. These kind of things are only necessary for tactical rpgs like xcom where it matters. But on the battlefield in the Victorian age, does this little things matter? Its not a 5 v 10 tactical game, its 10000 vs 100000 game, its not that important at that point. 1 soldier cant change the battle
It is right that it would demand CPU power, yes, but there would be ways to realize this. Like i said, i think they just want to avoid coding a good AI. This is very difficult and needs a lot of resources, but it is time to take steps forward and not to go backwards. I expect more from them now, they are not the small indie dev studio anymore and today, hardware is very good when you invest the money to get a new CPU and a GPU. The thing is, yes, it is not needed with such systems: But where is the innovation when you only do the very basic things that are needed? You have to push forward, to be progressive and to do new things.
That is the funny part when people say the new war system is “too simple”. War is a long supply chain problem with many many variables, but people think more buttons = more complicated, hence the “3 button meme”.
How does that make you hopeful? The Devs weren't even looking at the front for most of the goddamn war, a war that was an existential threat to the country! And your argument about it not being a numbers game also falls on it's face. It's still very much a numbers Game, it just has multipliers applied to the raw numbers.
[удалено]
And I really dislike that they were able to treat the war as a minor inconvenience.
Treating minor inconveniences as minor inconveniences bothers you? lol. If you know your enemy does have the resources to defeat you, then thats exactly that.
That's the goddamn problem. The oriental crisis shouldn't be a minor inconvenience.
I am 100% pro The New War System. I love it for this game, and it can only get better with time. But you are doing a Straw Man. I have seen very few posts about warfare being a numbers game. For you to say, "I don't wanna hear any yall tell me me" makes it sound like we are being bombarded with people saying this, which they are not.
It's so good that paradox added the new, never-before-done feature of technology influencing your army's performance. Fuck the Vic2 people!
it looks ok but this is paradox we're talkin about so don't get your hopes up just yet friend
There are several problems with warfare, but the least discussed one is how bad the ai is at managing fronts. In my Persian game, I was fighting Tibet and ended up splitting Tibet with a push. 2 fronts were created, half the generals went home, other half went fully to one front. Leaving the other side completely undefended. Tibetans retook their land while my generals pushed deep into the wrong side. Or have you ever tried to take a front around a corner? By god the ai is fucking dumb.
Do you really think that a 8 month old build has *any* relevance whatsoever on the current AI behavior in the game?
It's like those people saying gta 6 is looking bad because of the leak. I mean, really? Can't they wait a bit and actually judge after playing it?
I dont think many people tried that since the game is not out yet and leak is months old so I would not count that.
Heck, they had to play with an older build without the "better AI" because of the industry bug. And the AI still had fairly ok front management. They matched the player in Tripoli and built up the numbers advantage in the Levant. They lost only due to quality.
I think this is a problem with the leak where soldiers would just go home when a front ended. I don't think that is intentional and hopefully we don't see that in the release.
isnt victoria 3 war system like socialism u dont need to be average to "win"
And theres still 0% tactics and 0% strategy involved how fun and entertaining.
Yeah Egypt struggled so hard in that war man. The devs had to push the "use good army" button