|
Vichan posted:Generals being tied to focus groups will make for interesting scenarios. One could think of the USA’s star general Lee who has strong ties to southern plantation owners, for example.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Vichan posted:Generals being tied to focus groups will make for interesting scenarios. Now I'm curious, are generals going to be pulled directly from your military pops and thus have their own interest group affiliation, or are they going to be characters outside of the pop system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
How moddable will it be to change all the sprites/portraits? Like if I wanted Elves or a total conversion mod like the World of Warcraft CK3 mod guys or otherwise wanted to entirely change the art style of the characters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:How moddable will it be to change all the sprites/portraits? Like if I wanted Elves or a total conversion mod like the World of Warcraft CK3 mod guys or otherwise wanted to entirely change the art style of the characters? Considering Paradox's active stance towards making their games as moddable as possible, I can't imagine that wouldn't also be the case with the Vic3 portraits. They seem to be based on the same tech as the ones in CK3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Yeah I give it like a week before the steampunk mod starts up
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I hope the best generals are old defensive minded cowards, who will sit in their trenches and never order a charge. Actually, trench warfare favors the attacker in the initial engagement, only swinging back to the defender during the counter-attack from fallback trenches. The popular view of trench warfare is extremely inaccurate, and the best generals should be ones with a masterful grasp of time tables and logistics. See here for a more in depth explanation
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Nicodemus Dumps posted:Now I'm curious, are generals going to be pulled directly from your military pops and thus have their own interest group affiliation, or are they going to be characters outside of the pop system? I think there was an officer pop type https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/victoria-3-dev-diary-11-employment-and-qualifications.1487723/ No idea how you create qualifications for them, though. Maybe there's a military academy building that soldiers, etc can enter into? Aristocrats buying commissions? Maybe depends on policies. guidoanselmi fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Nov 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:Actually, trench warfare favors the attacker in the initial engagement, only swinging back to the defender during the counter-attack from fallback trenches. The popular view of trench warfare is extremely inaccurate, and the best generals should be ones with a masterful grasp of time tables and logistics. See here for a more in depth explanation This doesn't seem that different from what I've always heard, that the front trenches could be overran but the reserves were always too deep to penetrate. That sounds like the defense is favored, even tempered with "whoever is shooting artillery is doing the killing".
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:One could think of the USA’s star general Lee who has strong ties to southern plantation owners, for example. I doubt colonels are going to be modeled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Did they say if there's going to be a historical option like Hearts of Iron or is it pure chaos sandbox from Day 1
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:This doesn't seem that different from what I've always heard, that the front trenches could be overran but the reserves were always too deep to penetrate. That sounds like the defense is favored, even tempered with "whoever is shooting artillery is doing the killing". Man, I'm incredibly hyped for a deep look into the hands of combat of Vic3. So exciting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Yeah, I think I read that blog post a while back and that was kind of my thought. "Actually, artillery attacks were effective! (Until you had to attack from the place you just blew to hell, so backup trenches would stop any advance from getting too far)" is not quite the counterpoint to conventional wisdom that it's being presented as. "Offense was not able to overcome defense" is still true at the end of the day. A better way to put it might be that technology did not so much favor the defender as it prevented any sort of sustained offensive momentum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
DaysBefore posted:Did they say if there's going to be a historical option like Hearts of Iron or is it pure chaos sandbox from Day 1 Nope, we don't know if there'll be some version of focus/mission trees yet. I'm sure once they announce that we can speculate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:Actually, trench warfare favors the attacker in the initial engagement, only swinging back to the defender during the counter-attack from fallback trenches. The popular view of trench warfare is extremely inaccurate, and the best generals should be ones with a masterful grasp of time tables and logistics. See here for a more in depth explanation The thing I wondered about that article though is whether the attacker is favored because they're attacking or because they're expending a bunch of shells in a concentrated place and time? If you fired the same number of shells but didn't actually attack, what would the casualty ratios look like? My guess is it would look better if most of the kills are from artillery but worse if most of the kills are from winning the race to the parapet and trapping the defenders in their bunkers, but I don't know which is actually the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:This doesn't seem that different from what I've always heard, that the front trenches could be overran but the reserves were always too deep to penetrate. That sounds like the defense is favored, even tempered with "whoever is shooting artillery is doing the killing". It's mostly explaining the idea of defence in depth. The popular conception of the trenches is that they couldn't be taken because No Mans Land and machine guns, whereas the reality is "they can be taken, but not for long, and you're not going much farther".
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:The thing I wondered about that article though is whether the attacker is favored because they're attacking or because they're expending a bunch of shells in a concentrated place and time? If you fired the same number of shells but didn't actually attack, what would the casualty ratios look like? My guess is it would look better if most of the kills are from artillery but worse if most of the kills are from winning the race to the parapet and trapping the defenders in their bunkers, but I don't know which is actually the case. It's mostly the race to the parapet. Trench fortifications are actually pretty good at minimizing casualties from shelling, but once the attacker reaches the edge of the trench the defender is at a huge disadvantage. The solution that eventually "worked" is to make small, carefully planned attacks and then stop attacking until you can rebuild your strength. This lets you slowly win the war of attrition
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:It's mostly explaining the idea of defence in depth. The popular conception of the trenches is that they couldn't be taken because No Mans Land and machine guns, whereas the reality is "they can be taken, but not for long, and you're not going much farther". But at the end the day you can't take the trench lol, doesn't really change anything about the myth of the Western Front
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
DaysBefore posted:But at the end the day you can't take the trench lol, doesn't really change anything about the myth of the Western Front It kinda does, it pretty dramatically alters the actual nature of the fight and why it never went anywhere. It at least smashes the conception of the trench as an impregnable fortress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
The week after that they'll tell everyone that Imperator: Rome was March of the Eagles 2 all along.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
Ngl, a March of The Eagles sequel that applies HoI4 Focuses to a dynamic revolutionary era is a secret wishlist item of mine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:It kinda does, it pretty dramatically alters the actual nature of the fight and why it never went anywhere. It at least smashes the conception of the trench as an impregnable fortress. Right but the counter-point to 'you can't take trenches' amounts to 'you can take trenches, but only the outermost and purposefully sparsely defended part, and only for a very short period of time, and eventually the people who originally held the trench take it back and everything evens out'. I really don't see how that fundamentally changes the understanding of the war. It just replaces machine guns with artillery as the deadliest thing, and even then the idea that the war was just people marching in slow orderly columns straight in to the machine gun tsunami was already on the way out. Interesting post from that historian dude as always though
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
It makes the generals not seem like absolute tossers for ever suggesting an offensive
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
I think the point of the article is that "just sit in the trenches and let the enemy break himself on your defenses" isnt a feasible strategy because defenders take as many or more casualties
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
thanks to the amazing power of hindsight you stay back, develop tanks and then and only then you build a massive batch of those and go on full offensive the best part of the war mechanic is that you will probably have to antagonize every single general to do so. "I HAVE SEEN THE FUTURE, YOU DOLTS" and the generals look at each other and don't know what to do
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
The hands-off system and generals possibly being tied to interest groups also allows for more realistic bad decisions to be made. Even if you, the player, just want to sit in your impenetrable line and have the enemy run out of men first, your aristocrats are clamoring for an offensive win, and your peasants want you to reclaim some ancestral homeland that was unjustly taken from you a generation ago (and now sits behind a heavily fortified mountain pass). And, of course, there should be plenty of pressure and difficulty in removing politically connected idiot generals
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:And, of course, there should be plenty of pressure and difficulty in removing politically connected idiot generals looks like we already know a strategy against the UK just bait them into charges of the light brigade one after another FOR GLORY after clearing house in a domestic gigastrife to get rid of every single incompetent smoothbrains in your military
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:The hands-off system and generals possibly being tied to interest groups also allows for more realistic bad decisions to be made. Even if you, the player, just want to sit in your impenetrable line and have the enemy run out of men first, your aristocrats are clamoring for an offensive win, and your peasants want you to reclaim some ancestral homeland that was unjustly taken from you a generation ago (and now sits behind a heavily fortified mountain pass).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
And while the time period is of course wrong, this system should also handle the military fallout from events like Stalin's purges better than HoI does. Rather than just getting a slightly smaller +attack stat due to losing your capable generals, you are left with a drastically less capable command staff that you aren't able to overrule on a tactical level
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Note: The reason your peasants want to reclaim some ancestral homeland is because liberal nationalists have filled their heads with ideas of a "national homeland". Announcing a strategy of “engage the enemy in a grinding war of attrition until they run out of men first in several years” is also probably untenable for your civilians enduring the war economy, not to mention the soldiers who are going to do the grinding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
I am deeply excited to run a kleptocratic nacrostate with impossibly incompetent officers and basically just be the dirt worst cartel state constantly trying to get the great powers to back my dumb diplo actions in MP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
"look, I just need Kuwait to get me through the month, come on, should be a stomp."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:Announcing a strategy of “engage the enemy in a grinding war of attrition until they run out of men first in several years” is also probably untenable for your civilians enduring the war economy, not to mention the soldiers who are going to do the grinding. Any political party who announces "We will sacrifice four million men to make them lose five million men and thereby eke out a gradual victory" is going to lose every single vote to the party that says "We will crush them with our superior will and end the war by Christmas!" even if the latter party has no actual plan or means of doing so. The incremental "grab and hold" strategies that eventually proved most effective at breaking the stalemate don't sell as well as "grab and grab and grab (and then lose to a counterattack because we never re-fortified and eventually built up too much friction)". You can always fire a few officers for "bungling" the attack, as long as you can keep the people motivated and voting for you. It's only when every other strategy has been tried and failed that you get the political will to settle in for the long slow game of incremental victories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
I can't believe Wiz is wasting the longest dev diary on combat instead of straights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I can't believe Wiz is wasting the longest dev diary on combat instead of straights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
straits are the frontlines of the seas
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
forget straits we need lake and riverine warfare
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I can't believe Wiz is wasting the longest dev diary on combat instead of straights. i don't think there's that much to say about the straights
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 04:44
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:i don't think there's that much to say about the straights Pop sexuality will not be simulated in the release version of the game, but it will be stimulated in the post-release Victoria III: Gross Indecency DLC, featuring over 10,000 pages of authentic 19th century erotica in epub format. Red Bones fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Nov 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 09:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I think the point of the article is that "just sit in the trenches and let the enemy break himself on your defenses" isnt a feasible strategy because defenders take as many or more casualties France was the defender at Verdun, with a numerical superiority over the attackers, and still lost more men. The reality is indeed vastly different from needing to throw waves into no man's land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:28
|
|
