|
Tomn posted:Sorry, I don’t frequent the Paradox forums much - are there actually people who wanted NATO counters in Victoria 2? There are people who want to use NATO counters at Megiddo 
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 10:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
I’m really curious how late game warfare will fare. What I’m seeing in streams indicate that wars tend to move in one side’s favour or the other at all times, giving little space for stalemates. This doesn’t necessarily jive with a notable conflict in the later parts of the game’s timeline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 10:59
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think we've seen much of the lategame at all yet. I think every stream so far has started in 1836 and run for a few years only.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 11:01
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:I’m really curious how late game warfare will fare. What I’m seeing in streams indicate that wars tend to move in one side’s favour or the other at all times, giving little space for stalemates. This doesn’t necessarily jive with a notable conflict in the later parts of the game’s timeline. It could be tied to tech like in Victoria II, where things like battlefield medicine, artillery improvements and machine guns were the main driving factors in making wars more static in the late game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 11:05
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Sorry, I don’t frequent the Paradox forums much - are there actually people who wanted NATO counters in Victoria 2? Of course. I just ran a quick forum search:  
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 11:24
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:I’m really curious how late game warfare will fare. What I’m seeing in streams indicate that wars tend to move in one side’s favour or the other at all times, giving little space for stalemates. This doesn’t necessarily jive with a notable conflict in the later parts of the game’s timeline. The most recent stream had some periods of stalemate but it looks like it will only happen when both forces on a front are very evenly matched, or if nobody wants to advance. Presumably machine guns and other similar techs will give a huge boost to defense (this is how V2 did things and I don't see why it would be different)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 11:31
|
|
|
The only non-coward way for GSG to model warfare is to switch every battle in Valkyria Chronicles style tactical engagement where you sequentially directly control every single soldier. (That was sarcasm) I kinda understand people wanting control over the military from a narrative standpoint both in historical and sci-fi settings. Historical and sci-fi fiction is mostly interested in battles. Also, espionage like getting the queen's diamond studs or saving the princess from the Death Star, and those things are asked by the gamers as well. You don't want to play just as the ruler of an empire, you also want to play out the fantasy of being Caesar at Gaul or do a Picard Manuever. But I can't see any proper gameplay reason for such stuff. Making the tactical layer important enough but not too important is such a hard balance act I almost never see it working. I feel that as I'm not that interested in the very idea of a game that gives you both global and tactical layers I can't just suffer through problems caused by it and enjoy the grand vision. Every Total War game I played felt like after the first few turns I should not ever have a battle I don't auto-resolve. If I do then I've failed strategically. When I play EU4 or CK3 I perceive battles as semi-predictable gambles and I think this is how it's supposed to work. To be honest I'm afraid to read about the combat mechanics of those games cause I've ruined some empire-building games for myself by realizing how you can game the system tactically which destroys the game. I'm happy that Victoria 3 doesn't put me in the shoes of decision-makers on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 11:53
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:The most recent stream had some periods of stalemate but it looks like it will only happen when both forces on a front are very evenly matched, or if nobody wants to advance. Presumably machine guns and other similar techs will give a huge boost to defense (this is how V2 did things and I don't see why it would be different)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 12:12
|
|
Tomn posted:Sorry, I don’t frequent the Paradox forums much - are there actually people who wanted NATO counters in Victoria 2? Given that the NATO symbology is based on the the one that was devised by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 1917, they should obviously be a tech you can research in Victoria 3. Not sure they would be of that much use though, given how the war system works.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:No all the demands are set during the diplomatic play. That seems like a ridiculous oversight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 12:25
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, I don't think we've seen much of the lategame at all yet. I think every stream so far has started in 1836 and run for a few years only. It is starting to be a notable omission that we're less than 4 weeks from release and basically haven't seen what the game looks like beyond even the midway point Like in ck or hoi there's not much difference but the way internal politics and warfare change so much over this timeline it'd be worth getting a look
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 12:58
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Sorry, I don’t frequent the Paradox forums much - are there actually people who wanted NATO counters in Victoria 2? 1.) I have serious trouble in stuff like EU4 and being able to tell which direction a sprite is facing without pausing and zooming in and/or clicking on the unit to see its destination; it makes playing multiplayer a huge headache during tense parts of wars or dealing with perfect micro AI, and I feel like a square counter/chit would make it way more obvious to see which direction it was going 2.) I'm an old nerd who used to play board games from like the 60s and 70s (I think? They werent my games) that were hex based and had counters, and these were games about Roman battles, Napoleonic Battles, ect 3.) Counters are better at conveying information to the user quickly compared a pixelated sprite So yeah maybe I'm a weirdo but its not like the only kind of counters are NATO counters or whatever and its a meme, but I just dont like sprites because they're superfluous clutter on the screen, to me, so I understand if others may want them too. I think Vicky3 will fine though because we wont have to click on the sprites and order them around so maybe it'll be fine here? AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Sep 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 13:16
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:they let me write a dev diary about ohio Drew Carey is that you?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
The sprites I've seen in the Strategic Command games seem ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That seems like a ridiculous oversight. I suspect the devs are concerned about invalidating diplo plays as a mechanic if you can bait-and-switch after the play concludes. However, I think it could work if there were some sensible downsides to declaring war goals after the play instead of during it. For one thing, you should probably need the consent of your allies to change war goals, since the war goals were one of the things that persuaded them to join in the first place. That lines up nicely with also needing their consent for peace treaties. There could also be a hefty Threat hit to adding war goals after the play, compared to the Threat costs during the play. Changing your war goals could also mean the enemy gets a chance to respond with changes of their own, with no Threat penalty to them. E: I guess Threat is called Infamy this time around. Same deal though. Fray fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Sep 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Fray posted:I suspect the devs are concerned about invalidating diplo plays as a mechanic if you can bait-and-switch after the play concludes. However, I think it could work if there were some sensible downsides to declaring war goals after the play instead of during it. For one thing, you should probably need the consent of your allies to change war goals, since the war goals were one of the things that persuaded them to join in the first place. That lines up nicely with also needing their consent for peace treaties. There could also be a hefty Threat hit to adding war goals after the play, compared to the Threat costs during the play. Changing your war goals could also mean the enemy gets a chance to respond with changes of their own, with no Threat penalty to them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think a simple way to balance adding more war goals for yourself would be having casualties and economic damage justify additional war goals. As long as the required damage is high enough, that should do a lot to prevent gaming the system, while still allowing a Great War equivalent to escalate over time. Other than that, I guess doing a diplomatic play to get another country to enter the war on your side should be another way to expand war goals, though obviously those goals would reward your ally and not yourself. That all sounds reasonable as well. And if you do want to pull someone into a war that has started, I expect you'd need to offer a lot more than you would during the play, since you're asking them to fight an actual war instead of a potential one. Obviously you'd also want the AI to look at whether you're getting creamed before it agrees to hop on a sinking ship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:Likewise a lot of the support for the new war system comes from people who think the idea of 'cheesing the AI' is, like, a moral wrong and all games that you can do it in are incredibly awful (even though 'tricking your opponent into fighting you in conditions favorable to you' is like a good half of warfare). I think this is a really well thought out post. For a while I was enjoying watching hoi4 let's plays (can't stand/figure out playing it lol) on youtube like "trotsky mexico takes over usa and ussr" or other really crazy what ifs, but after a couple I got really bored because the ai is just totally braindead. or the modifiers applied just don't make sense. the mexico video is a good example. while theoretically possible, mexico fighting and puppeting the united states in 36/37 should be an enormous challenge. instead they barely had any troops and didn't understand the concept of encirclement. the combat in hoi peaked in 2 imo and has become both too complicated and too simplified. I'll have to play vicky 3 to judge it, but I'm glad they focused on building up the country as the primary gameplay vs painting the map.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Mirello posted:I think this is a really well thought out post. I mean I think AI not doing well is probably going to be an issue, just not in the same way. Like the AI being unable to make a war economy so you just run them over but without any of the skill micro managing entails
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
Nato counters are the only correct way to play. Stack em to the sky, dragoons from cape town to halifax.ilitarist posted:The only non-coward way for GSG to model warfare is to switch every battle in Valkyria Chronicles style tactical engagement where you sequentially directly control every single soldier. (That was sarcasm) Don't tease me like this
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Archduke Frantz Fanon posted:Don't tease me like this Don't have to design a good lategame if it takes IRL years to reach it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:The only non-coward way for GSG to model warfare is to switch every battle in Valkyria Chronicles style tactical engagement where you sequentially directly control every single soldier. (That was sarcasm) Determine a battle's winner via a private game of foxhole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Advance wars but you mail the Gameboy to each other for every turn
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I mean I think AI not doing well is probably going to be an issue, just not in the same way. Like the AI being unable to make a war economy so you just run them over but without any of the skill micro managing entails The thing is if you had unit micro you'd still be able to get those kinds of economic advantages and be able to easily destroy the AI in war with exploitative micro. Now there's one less way you can clown on the AI, which is an improvement. And there are limits to those kinds of advantages too- in the second war in the Egypt stream the Ottomans had clicked the button that made their army not poo poo and, while the war went better than expected letting Egypt white peace out, there was no easy way to actually defeat a technologically and numerically equivalent army. Honestly, the fact that you think exploiting unit micro better than the AI is "skill" while exploiting general knowledge of game systems better than the AI is somehow not is a pretty weird perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
It also sucks beacuse unit micro skill is identical between a lot of paradox GSGs. There was nothing worse than booting up CK3 for the first time and realising that small stack on good terrain next to large stack was the be all and end all of strategy in that game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That seems like a ridiculous oversight. It's not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
Wiz posted:It's not. Are there any plans to add some kind of Great War system later?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Wiz posted:It's not. I'm stoked for the unit-less combat. Don't let the haters detract from making Britain/France/America playable late game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
As someone who recently wrapped up Greater Germany and Russia Vicky2 campaigns (with GFM), I'll be quite happy to not wrangle a billion brigades. I wish there was a way to template armies; the rally point system is a start but it's a real pain splitting out conscript armies and giving them supporting arty/engineer/plane/tank brigades
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
DJ_Mindboggler posted:I'm stoked for the unit-less combat. Don't let the haters detract from making Britain/France/America playable late game. this is an embarrassing rear end post my dude lmfao GaussianCopula posted:Given that the NATO symbology is based on the the one that was devised by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 1917, they should obviously be a tech you can research in Victoria 3. honestly a tech completely changing the military UI for no reason sounds hilarious
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
To elaborate, the reason you can't add wargoals after the war starts is because of the negative effects it would have on the Diplomatic Play phase - why would you ever add anything upfront instead of just doing it after the war starts and your allies are already locked in? I've played around with some ideas for adding wargoals after war starts based on how much you've bled in the war, but nothing concrete enough to go into the release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 12:01
|
|
|
I hope later we get some sort of system where huge losses would justify adding more wargoals or something like that. I realize it may make the game feel much more gamey (I have to throw just 30k more people into the grinder to be able to demand 1 more province!) and it's hard to balance so I understand if it never comes to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 12:25
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I hope later we get some sort of system where huge losses would justify adding more wargoals or something like that. I realize it may make the game feel much more gamey (I have to throw just 30k more people into the grinder to be able to demand 1 more province!) and it's hard to balance so I understand if it never comes to be. paying for land with bodies, very accurate
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
Wiz posted:To elaborate, the reason you can't add wargoals after the war starts is because of the negative effects it would have on the Diplomatic Play phase - why would you ever add anything upfront instead of just doing it after the war starts and your allies are already locked in? Lady Radia posted:this is an embarrassing rear end post my dude lmfao
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
I think the issue with allowing adding wargoals after the war declaration is it ends up turning every war into total war. If you're losing, you want to fight to the last man because what started out as a minor conflict ends up becoming something that will completely cripple your nation if you surrender, and if you're winning you want to ride the momentum to take as much as you possibly can. It discourages peacing out quickly to try to minimize the impact on your soldier-age population, which is a big deal in Vicky because pops are your entire economic engine rather than just a passively regenerating pool of manpower you spend fighting wars. Encouraging that sort of "sticking in way longer than we should" makes sense for a great war, but there was only one actual great war in the time period. WW1 was notable because it was such an aberration, and while I do think that should be mechanically represented in the game since it's the pivotal moment at the end of the timeline, it's probably not something that should be present in the basic mechanics of every conflict. If you compare something like the the Franco-Prussian war, which was still a very major conflict, it only lasted about 6 months and ~200,000 dead, and despite a total victory by Germany they still only took Alsace-Lorraine and a bunch of war reparations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I think it makes sense and I'd rather wait to see how it plays out more before passing rash judgement. gonna assume you're doing the thing you did last page and posting aggro cause ur dumb and then coming a few posts later to apologize to me, im looking forward to it  on topic, im still super hype for my initial two sicilies run. gonna be interesting to see what you can do arms industry-wise when you have an actual source of sulfur
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:gonna assume you're doing the thing you did last page and posting aggro cause ur dumb and then coming a few posts later to apologize to me, im looking forward to it what was so embarassing about that post? Calling them haters? Yeah that's dumb but you can stand to dial it down yourself "my dude". Also, America and Britain really do suck to play lategame in vicky2 wars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
I hope the war goals is moddable, so conversion games can adapt them to their circumstances. I think hope there's some mechanism for Versailles like treaties, because at least in a MP context, if one player is a hyperaggressive rear end in a top hat having to go through multiple wars to cut them down to a reasonable size might be a bit much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
yeti friend posted:what was so embarassing about that post? Calling them haters? Yeah that's dumb but you can stand to dial it down yourself "my dude". Also, America and Britain really do suck to play lategame in vicky2 wars. no i actually agree that i hate the vicky 2 war system and really look forward to the vicky 3 war system. i thinnk going to the goon game dev like "hey nooo ignore those people i, this poster, love you" is embarrassing also lol guess i made that one aggro dude mad  i'll fix it in a bit, need to find another good pic
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
Perhaps an escalation mechanic? A diplomatic play on top of a diplomatic play? "Give us what we demand or we will expand the war to new fronts and bring in more troops?" Something to represent that not every war is a total war? And escalation brings additional costs to the escalating power in terms of increased infamy, worsened political unrest at home, and now expanded war aims with an associated decrease in war score. And other powers with a regional interest get a second chance to join the war if they stayed neutral the first time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 19:28
|
|
