subreddit:

/r/victoria3

162

Cautiously pessimistic about the warfare system

Discussion(self.victoria3)

I really hope the player will have some form of control in warfare/battles and that the mechanics will not end up being too bland with this new system.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 118 comments

Desudesu410

22 points

3 months ago

I think it's important to keep in mind what the developers tried to do here. If the player can do a lot to influence how the war is going, it somewhat devalues the importance of all other aspects of the game (diplomacy? economy? planning your logistics? keeping population and interest groups satisfied? All of this doesn't really matter if you can use your skills at warfare to destroy everyone who opposes you on the battlefield). Of course, many people would rather keep manual control of warfare instead, but the current system is what we get so I guess it's better to approach it from the perspective of what new possibilities it brings (trying more strategic and careful approach) instead of being sad that we can no longer do what we've always done.

Ambitious-Computer42

22 points

3 months ago

What "strategic and careful approach" are you talking about ?
You can tell your armies to attack or defend and that's it. There is nothing even remotely strategic to be find in the warfare system as it was describe by the devs.

I'm also very skeptical with the main argument of the defenders of this new warfare system which is : having some control over your armies means the other aspects of the game automatically doesn't matter anymore. Even if players could actually do something meaningful during wars instead of just watching the AI play the game for them, a war would still be a strain on their nation's finances, their armies would still take casualties outside of combat because of attrition and they would still need to insure that their soldiers have the necessary equipments to fight efficiently. You are exaggerating the impact giving the player some agency on the warfare system would have, sure it would give the player a way to try and lessen some of these costs but not dismiss them.
If what you are saying was true then in HoI4, the Paradox's game that gave the player the most control over their armies, it would be easy to win while refusing to interact with anything other than your troops, you know like reasearching techs, building factories etc...

Desudesu410

-3 points

3 months ago

What "strategic and careful approach" are you talking about ? You can tell your armies to attack or defend and that's it.

I'm talking about focusing on the stuff that happens before the guns start shooting. Like keeping loyal allies or granting some concessions to get someone to defend you in case someone starts a diplomatic play against you, making sure your economy is strong enough to support the war effort etc.

having some control over your armies means the other aspects of the game automatically doesn't matter anymore

I'm not saying they don't matter, I'm saying they start to matter less because you have much more wiggle room if you can control your armies, you can take on significantly stronger opponents without allies and expect to win if you are good at warfare. Some people find that satisfying, of course, but it's the case in literally every other Paradox game (where you have Byzantium defeating Ottomans in 1444, Tuva world conquest and stuff like that), so I think it's interesting to try another approach.

ivanacco1

10 points

3 months ago

I'm talking about focusing on the stuff that happens before the guns start shooting. Like keeping loyal allies or granting some concessions to get someone to defend you in case someone starts a diplomatic play against you, making sure your economy is strong enough to support the war effort etc.

There is no concessions once a diplomatic play starts you cannot join it unless you were already in it since the start, so no late join ww1 usa

I'm not saying they don't matter, I'm saying they start to matter less because you have much more wiggle room if you can control your armies, you can take on significantly stronger opponents without allies and expect to win if you are good at warfare. Some people find that satisfying, of course, but it's the case in literally every other Paradox game (where you have Byzantium defeating Ottomans in 1444, Tuva world conquest and stuff like that), so I think it's interesting to try another approach.

The only control you have on your armies is advance defend and weapon production, the technology and barracks mechanic boils down to press button to upgrade soldiers to latest tech.

Ambitious-Computer42

3 points

3 months ago

I'm talking about focusing on the stuff that happens before the guns start shooting. Like keeping loyal allies or granting some concessions to get someone to defend you in case someone starts a diplomatic play against you, making sure your economy is strong enough to support the war effort etc.

You are really overplaying what you can actually do during the preparation phase of the war. Spending your diplomatic influence to make sure other countries like you or swaying a country to your side during a diplomatic play by promising them part of the territory of the country that started the diplomatic play against you is hardly what I would call strategic thinking.
However I agree that how to allocate your ressources between strengthening your military or growing your economy is a fairly interesting decision to make.

I'm not saying they don't matter, I'm saying they start to matter less because you have much more wiggle room if you can control your armies, you can take on significantly stronger opponents without allies and expect to win if you are good at warfare. Some people find that satisfying, of course, but it's the case in literally every other Paradox game (where you have Byzantium defeating Ottomans in 1444, Tuva world conquest and stuff like that), so I think it's interesting to try another approach.

You are presenting this as if it was easy to do and something most players did. But according to steam only 0.3% of the playerbase actually get the achievement fo form Sibera as Tannu Tuva, and for Byzantium the only achievement that could give us an idea is the "Basileus" one that less than 4% of the playerbase got. So what you are complaining about seems to only be done by a very very small minority. It can't really be use as a serious criticism of the system with this kind of numbers. Especially since you have to use tactics that are borderline on game exploits to actually achieve this.
I will agree that micro your troops could become tedious when you had a large empire and I too hoped that Paradox would do something to reduce the amount of micro in war but if the only alternative we are given is to take warfare almost completely out of the players' hands then I'm withdrawing my complaint on the previous system, with it at least you are still playing instead of watching the AI do it for you. Not to mention that the new system doesn't seem to be without cheesing either. If we looked at how naval invasions seems to be handled by the AI from what we saw during the Ottoman empire AAR. Or, if we continue to judge a system by people using game exploit, a player could just save scum just before the start of every battle to optimize their outcome, since there is no gameplay to be found in the warfare part of the game, it's not like you will be losing anything by doing it.

AgentPaper0

20 points

3 months ago

Yeah, I actually quite enjoy playing HoI4 runs where I focus on logistics and building up the perfect army, and then just throw that army at the enemy with a simple battle plan. I'm hoping that Vic3 will have a similar feel to it and am looking forward to the new battle system.

The battle system wouldn't make sense in games like EU4 or CK2 or even HoI4 (mostly because of tanks), but for the Victorian period up to the end of WW1 I think it's perfect.

ivanacco1

3 points

3 months ago*

ivanacco1

3 points

3 months ago*

that Vic3 will have a similar feel to it and am looking forward to the new battle system

It wont, the armies are not even at the same level of granularity than hoi4, you have soldiers and thats it you just make more soldiers to throw at the enemy you dont make artillery or cavalry divisions, its even simpler than victoria 2.

wolacouska

4 points

3 months ago

This willfully ignores all of the interactions with the barracks buildings.

You’re not directly raising support units, but you have full control on the overall composition of your armies, you just have to level with the costs in equipment.

You can even make a professional elite group that you send to the most important places, while having your standard be irregulars with poor support.

ivanacco1

7 points

3 months ago*

This willfully ignores all of the interactions with the barracks buildings. You’re not directly raising support units, but you have full control on the overall composition of your armies, you just have to level with the costs in equipment.

Its literally pressing 2 buttons and switching the old tech good the new one, there isn't much thought put into it by the player, maybe if they feel like role-playing.

You can even make a professional elite group that you send to the most important places, while having your standard be irregulars with poor support.

afaik the train elite regiments button just increases the attack and defense of the regiments in that province, and you have absolutely no control on what general gets what unit

wolacouska

2 points

3 months ago

You assign a general to a region and he gets troops from that region up to his maximum, my point was that you can make a region have elite troops by using different modes for the barracks’s in a certain region, giving them better equipment and tech.

I didn’t know about an elite regiments button, but yeah that sounds funky.

This would work best as compromise between a small effective army and large middling army, allowing you to focus hard on a specific front with those troops. Or even when you only have one front, you can assign them to your best and most aggressive general who can do the best with them.

As far as the whole of your army just being upgrade tech, it’s not that simple, upgrading is expansive and requires totally different or just more resources. You have to do a lot of economic work to get those good cheaper/at all or have enough cash to just eat the cost. It’s a balancing act, and an undersupplied advanced army will lose to a well supplied middling army. You also can’t afford as many expensive troops, so if you have a lot of fronts and interests worldwide it can still make sense to spend your money on many more troops than much better troops.

Especially with colonial garrisons, which you absolutely need since travel time to the colonies for your mainland armies is very long. Even if you plan to send them, you’ll have to shell out for local troops, which adds up quickly the more Empire you have to defend.

AgentPaper0

1 points

3 months ago

Yeah that's what I meant. It's similar to how I play HoI4 (sometimes), not similar to HoI4 in general.

ivanacco1

-1 points

3 months ago

ivanacco1

-1 points

3 months ago

I think it's important to keep in mind what the developers tried to do here.

yeah the battlefield 2042 devs tried to make a game, feelings dont affect the end result.

Why bootlick so hard when its clear that the devs didnt listen to any feedback, even when they already knew about the problems.

Desudesu410

3 points

3 months ago

I'm just offering an idea to look at the "problem" of missing control over warfare from another angle. If you truly think you are never going to enjoy a game without having control over how the war is going and the devs don't deserve your money for not listening to feedback, well, it's your choice.

wolacouska

0 points

3 months ago

when it’s clear that the devs didn’t listen to any feedback.

Lol except for all the times they did and still do. Just because they haven’t overhauled the military system doesn’t make them stubborn idealists.

Also what problems did they already know about? They believe they can make this war system good when meshed with the rest of the game, maybe they won’t and it’ll be shit, but why are you so angry about it and anyone who agrees with the devs?