|
Jamsque posted:In my humble IMHO the biggest thing the game needs (besides the obvious fixes like AI not developing their resources or generals constantly going in to battle against overwhelming odds with the same 3 depleted units instead of fielding the many fresh troops that are available at the front) is STOCKPILES. Maybe not for every single resource, I'm not sure if I want to be managing my nation's tactical reserve of fine art, but for things like grain and oil and above all GUNS the current system just doesn't work well. If your army relies heavily on conscripts, as most armies do for most of the game, you are forced to massively overbuild weapons and munitions factories, only for them to lay idle 90% of the time and then be unable to meet demand the other 10%. Let me spend construction time and admin points to build some warehouses and then let me fill them with bullets and rifles. I feel like armories and such will absolutely be a thing that are added later on, probably in a DLC that focuses on and expands war.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Granaries would be nice too, to prevent a trade route disruption from plunging your country into food insecurity. Boy that was a rude wakeup with the USA splintered in half with the rebellious faction taking all their developed ports, instantly shorting my economy by 4k grain. The price I paid for being free of landowner influence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
strategic oil reserves that can be captured...
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:my favorite was when a large migration of australians moved to london I'm the Uluru that does not contain Uluru.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I feel like armories and such will absolutely be a thing that are added later on, probably in a DLC that focuses on and expands war. You are probably right, which is a bummer, to me this feels like a pretty core part of the economic simulation that is just missing. It's not like armories were some new development of industrialized warfare, arrows weren't being delivered to Agincourt by a just-in-time logistics chain, they had half a million of the things piled up in the Tower of London ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Not sure if it already exists, but I'd like to see diplomacy get an "intervention" option once a war has started. Could model things like the French/Spanish/UK intervening in the U.S. Civil War or the U.S. intervention in WW1, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Not sure if it already exists, but I'd like to see diplomacy get an "intervention" option once a war has started. Could model things like the French/Spanish/UK intervening in the U.S. Civil War or the U.S. intervention in WW1, for example. I think they’ve explicitly avoided that to keep everything contained in the diplomatic plays system. Ditto for adding wargoals during a war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Yeah it can be annoying when a war is dragging on in a neighbour and you want to be able to just step in and get them to wrap things up but I think the current system is fine, it's very annoying in other Paradox games to be doing well in a war and then have a GP drop in at the 11th hour for no apparent reason. The diplomatic plays system still allows that sort of "GPs getting themselves into other people's business for no reason", but it keeps it restricted to before the war breaks out when you still have time to back out. Once the actual fighting starts it's nice that all cards are on the table and there's not going to be any weird surprises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter I have arrived to let you know that calling the numeric overflows stack overflows has upset my dear friend greatly, because they are extremely different technical concepts. Thank you. Have a nice day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
Waifu Radia posted:Baronjutter I have arrived to let you know that calling the numeric overflows stack overflows has upset my dear friend greatly, because they are extremely different technical concepts. Thank you. Have a nice day. This post caused my stack to overflow and I hope your friend knows that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 01:46
|
|
|
Waifu Radia posted:Baronjutter I have arrived to let you know that calling the numeric overflows stack overflows has upset my dear friend greatly, because they are extremely different technical concepts. Thank you. Have a nice day. Right. One (apocryphally?) causes Civ Gandhi to nuke you, the other nukes the program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Right. One (apocryphally?) causes Civ Gandhi to nuke you, the other nukes the program. yes!! exactly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
i think the patch might have tuned AI willingness to jump into diplomatic plays a little too high...i can't even annex a subject without france deciding we're going to have a ruinous continental war over it. they've lost millions of dudes in the alps and still want to stick their dicks into everything i do. i'm gonna try to break occitania off of them just to get a buffer state at this rate
Jazerus fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Nov 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Right. One (apocryphally?) causes Civ Gandhi to nuke you, the other nukes the program. Technically the Gandhi one was underflow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Technically the Gandhi one was underflow. And also non-existent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Gandhi So how does the number of battalions work per battle? I was getting my rear end kicked earlier since France had more battalions than me or England in every engagement, for some reason. And the fact that our offense/defence numbers were better did not seem to matter. I checked the wiki which just says "the exact number (of battalions) can vary quite substantially" which no elaboration. Wasn't able to find any info in game either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 03:00
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:And also non-existent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Gandhi It's apparently bugged to favour the defender too much. I think it's just random. In general there seems to be a lot of stuff going on with the combat math that isn't given to the player. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Nov 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
combat size is tied to general command limit with random factors and i think some terrain thrown in there too - there's a combat width number behind the scenes still which is what's actually being affected. in short, you want to concentrate your dudes under as few generals as possible if you want to have big battles, and one of the key factors in combat is ensuring that your individual generals command more guys than the enemy's individual generals. a general that is an expert offensive/defensive planner with 10-20% extra command limit from other traits should basically roll any otherwise equal opponent by being able to press with more numbers and strong modifiers
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
I'm really looking forward to the point where they fix the number of fronts along a large border. As a China that had annexed everything along the Russian border up through the Ottoman Empire, I started a war with Russia. There was one front for that entire stretch of land. Sadly the game was running too slowly and I lost interest in seeing the war actually take place (it was a good 30 mins or so away), but I found the situation hilarious. As an aside, the point where you get strong enough to just ignore infamy and can literally puppet entire secondary powers in one war is hilarious. That specific war would have seen me puppet all of Russia in one fell swoop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
Yeah those expert offensive/defensive commander modifiers are huge and a big reason why Prussia is able to field supersoldiers in the start of the game - they start with a bunch of generals that are giving their troops +30% when attacking/defending and when your tech is equal that is a massive advantage. One other thing to be aware of is that even though having generals with as large an army as possible is what you want to do, don't just stick one general with a maxed out army on a front against a much larger force and think they can just hold the line forever because there's only one combat at a time. For one thing, troop morale doesn't recover that quickly so even if they are able to hold the enemy off from advancing, they will get worn down over time and eventually start going into combat with lower and lower morale and be losing even with superior numbers/stats. Having multiple generals on a front allows them to rotate out and during combat with one all the other generals can recover. Additionally, there does seem to be some chance for generals to "lend" troops to other generals on the front to fight with. I'm not sure what affects this and it seems like the bulk of the troops in a combat still come from the main general's army, but it does present the possibility of going into combat outnumbered if you only have a single general with a maxed out army against several.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 04:27
|
|
|
The % modifiers to offense/defense get even more absurd in the late-game if there's even the slightest tech disparity, given that late-game stats are much much higher to begin with, making % bonuses much more impactful. The difference between skirmish infantry and trench infantry with a defensive commander is like night and day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 04:55
|
|
|
Yay I reformed gran Columbia, you have no idea how happy that makes me. I did have to sell my soul to the British though … :/
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
Tomn posted:The % modifiers to offense/defense get even more absurd in the late-game if there's even the slightest tech disparity, given that late-game stats are much much higher to begin with, making % bonuses much more impactful. The difference between skirmish infantry and trench infantry with a defensive commander is like night and day. that assumes the values all scale linearly. i assume the combat math isn't that complex but it could be equivalent depending on the formula used.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah those expert offensive/defensive commander modifiers are huge and a big reason why Prussia is able to field supersoldiers in the start of the game - they start with a bunch of generals that are giving their troops +30% when attacking/defending and when your tech is equal that is a massive advantage. in my experience a single level 5 general can in fact hold a front against very superior numbers and even push it if you have a quality advantage. early-game wars you generally can't get away with this at all but once there are hundreds of battalions on each side you can definitely begin to outplay the AI by concentrating less force into fronts than they do and just letting them run into your dudes until they start to crumble. the biggest single factor here seems to be the field medicine production methods - if you've secured a supply of opium your recovery rate will easily outmatch the poor AIs that can't import opium because it just doesn't exist on the world market and you'll start racking up stunning kill counts while your troops hold steady. opium pretty much turns your dudes into space marines
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:20
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:that assumes the values all scale linearly. i assume the combat math isn't that complex but it could be equivalent depending on the formula used. My troops are getting 50 - 100:1 kill:death ratios with a 3:1 attack:defense ratio. The scaling is pretty wack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:25
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:in my experience a single level 5 general can in fact hold a front against very superior numbers and even push it if you have a quality advantage. early-game wars you generally can't get away with this at all but once there are hundreds of battalions on each side you can definitely begin to outplay the AI by concentrating less force into fronts than they do and just letting them run into your dudes until they start to crumble. the biggest single factor here seems to be the field medicine production methods - if you've secured a supply of opium your recovery rate will easily outmatch the poor AIs that can't import opium because it just doesn't exist on the world market and you'll start racking up stunning kill counts while your troops hold steady. opium pretty much turns your dudes into space marines Yeah I should have specified here "without a tech advantage" because a single general very much can mulch through 10x their own numbers when you've got high trench infantry and siege artillery against like line infantry. This is an element where the unrecognized powers get a bit odd because although they don't have any mechanical disadvantage to tech growth, for whatever reason they seem very reluctant to actually upgrade their troop composition and a late game China, which could easily be a military powerhouse, ends up being pretty easy to roll over with much smaller numbers. I guess it's historical so maybe that AI is explicitly coded to be more conservative about their military tech than they could be, but late game Japan seems to be the same despite this being the period where they did quickly catch up to the other great powers of the world (although I have noticed that AI Japan basically never does the Meiji Restoration so maybe it's a similar thing where Shogunate Japan's AI priorities are "don't care about tech advancement")
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah I should have specified here "without a tech advantage" because a single general very much can mulch through 10x their own numbers when you've got high trench infantry and siege artillery against like line infantry. This is an element where the unrecognized powers get a bit odd because although they don't have any mechanical disadvantage to tech growth, for whatever reason they seem very reluctant to actually upgrade their troop composition and a late game China, which could easily be a military powerhouse, ends up being pretty easy to roll over with much smaller numbers. I guess it's historical so maybe that AI is explicitly coded to be more conservative about their military tech than they could be, but late game Japan seems to be the same despite this being the period where they did quickly catch up to the other great powers of the world (although I have noticed that AI Japan basically never does the Meiji Restoration so maybe it's a similar thing where Shogunate Japan's AI priorities are "don't care about tech advancement") I think it's the Ammunition, with similar issues as other 'new' goods like steamers, oil etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
i'm currently mulching france as italy in 1870. 2-to-1 dudes on the front, i'm actually slightly worse on offense and defense despite having the same production methods (skirmish infantry, shrapnel artillery) i guess due to supply problems, but the opium just keeps my guys from dying so they can keep killing the french. i've got 74% recovery rate vs 32% for the french and it's the only real salient difference between us secure that opium supply. very important for punching above your weight
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:40
|
|
|
Tomn posted:The % modifiers to offense/defense get even more absurd in the late-game if there's even the slightest tech disparity, given that late-game stats are much much higher to begin with, making % bonuses much more impactful. The difference between skirmish infantry and trench infantry with a defensive commander is like night and day. This seems historically accurate, Crimean War troops should be annihilated by 1917 Western Front armies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:40
|
|
|
to be honest. i feel very very certain that paradox just is having EU4 AI armies go at eachother, and there's the pretending at it being a coherent front. or maybe HoI4 fronts but those are bad and broken enough to be the same thing lol so like. yeah this is all garbage and nonsense and armies just get trashed for seemingly silly reasons. but that seems like AI-AI wars in those games?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:49
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah I should have specified here "without a tech advantage" because a single general very much can mulch through 10x their own numbers when you've got high trench infantry and siege artillery against like line infantry. This is an element where the unrecognized powers get a bit odd because although they don't have any mechanical disadvantage to tech growth, for whatever reason they seem very reluctant to actually upgrade their troop composition and a late game China, which could easily be a military powerhouse, ends up being pretty easy to roll over with much smaller numbers. I guess it's historical so maybe that AI is explicitly coded to be more conservative about their military tech than they could be, but late game Japan seems to be the same despite this being the period where they did quickly catch up to the other great powers of the world (although I have noticed that AI Japan basically never does the Meiji Restoration so maybe it's a similar thing where Shogunate Japan's AI priorities are "don't care about tech advancement") This is very possibly because they never swapped out of the Peasant Levy law, which caps them at Line Infantry maximum and doesn't allow their conscripts to use artillery. Late-game Russia and the Ottomans for me also had Peasant Levy and were functionally meaningless to any wars they fought because of it. That being said, I have noticed that by 1936 almost nobody seemed to have gotten much beyond trench infantry - I'd guess the ability to supply their troops with sufficient arms might be a culprit, but I couldn't be sure. Tiler Kiwi posted:that assumes the values all scale linearly. i assume the combat math isn't that complex but it could be equivalent depending on the formula used. I dunno about the math, but the actual effect in battle is pretty noticeable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 05:51
|
|
|
I like how detailed the game can get with generals, and how in the late game you're encouraged to make specialist forces with the add-ons to be more defensive, more offensive, etc. However, there are a few problems: 1. I can't reorganize my generals - if I had a way to file generals away as offensive, defensive, naval invasion, etc., that would help me to be interested in specializing them 2. I can't be bothered to deal with so many generals in the late game - I have to hire them, promote them X times, make sure they're in the right theater, and then assigning them stuff is such a pain in the rear end (please for the love of god add hotkeys for assigning generals to fronts - my wrists are tired of going from the middle right of the screen to the bottom left of the screen to the top left of the screen to assign each general, and I have no loving clue where I've assigned generals already because the numbers in the summary menu only tell me what troops are there now, and not how many troops I've sent to reinforce) 3. I can't organize equipment by army. At best I could specialize different regions, but then that's still a pain in the rear end to do. 4. The specialization only really starts to matter in the very late game when you unlock multiple addons. Even then, I doubt that the combat AI is smart enough to put my defenders on the defensive and my attackers on the offensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
Tomn posted:This is very possibly because they never swapped out of the Peasant Levy law, which caps them at Line Infantry maximum and doesn't allow their conscripts to use artillery. Late-game Russia and the Ottomans for me also had Peasant Levy and were functionally meaningless to any wars they fought because of it. That would make sense, both China and Japan start with the landholders having like 50% clout and the landholders like Peasant Levy, and unlike players they don't seem to take any steps to remove them. Is there any sort of Boshin War event for Japan to try to replicate the historical circumstances for the end of the Shogunate? I never saw one while playing as them but I went and kicked the landowners out on my own, rather than having a foreign power come in and force big changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 06:13
|
|
|
I'd bet money that solving the AI's industrialization loop will have knock-on effects of solving their backwards politics due to how that shifts power blocs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
I feel like as a general thing, every time you lose a war while using the Peasant Levy law there should be increasing political pressure to change it to something, anything else as it becomes increasingly obvious that it’s leaving you painfully vulnerable to modern threats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 06:47
|
|
|
eXXon posted:I'm the Uluru that does not contain Uluru.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 06:55
|
|
|
The Austrians have achieved freedom from the vile Austrians. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
For what it's worth and even my complaining upthread, I think it the game does nail making political outcomes the result of economic conditions and does let you national garden and make number go up. Yeah it's buggy but systems are complex so that's not so unexpected. Game just needs a bug and balance pass and flavour for what's happening around the world. I think the response is to the hype surrounding the game as it was coming out - Vicky 3 was meant to be everything for everyone and I certainly saw it as Paradox making the history simulator we always wanted, which is a hard row to hoe. I'll say this much for the complaining, the war system is fine. I used to try to avoid war as much as possible in Vic2 because of the tedium so this is an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:4. The specialization only really starts to matter in the very late game when you unlock multiple addons. Even then, I doubt that the combat AI is smart enough to put my defenders on the defensive and my attackers on the offensive. let's say you had 200 troops. you could load up a general from one region with 100 and a general from a different region with the other 100, give them different addons by tediously flipping barracks switches, and then set the offensive one to advance and the defensive one to defend on the same front. your advancing general will always handle the offense, obviously; i think defending generals do get priority over advancing generals to handle defense, but it seems to be weighted by size so that your useless subjects can't pile up defending armies on your fronts and then bungle the defense every time. i'm not sure how it works if the advancing and defending generals are commanding roughly equal armies anyway flipping barracks addons by region sounds tedious as hell so probably not something you want to bother with outside of an existential conflict. kinda like the old army attachment system in stellaris
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 07:44
|
|
|
MinistryofLard posted:Yeah it's buggy but systems are complex so that's not so unexpected. Game just needs a bug and balance pass and flavour for what's happening around the world. I think the response is to the hype surrounding the game as it was coming out - Vicky 3 was meant to be everything for everyone and I certainly saw it as Paradox making the history simulator we always wanted, which is a hard row to hoe. this is a compliment and a curse to the devs: i do not think the complexity of the involved systems are the major issues holding the game back from True Greatness right now. I would be hopelessly addicted playing it again today if there were an AI they remembered to add to the game, and if they remembered to git cherry-pick the commits that added politics. the economy is super strong and well developed by them. i dont have a ton of notes (some wage poo poo? fix the issue where more than 40 goods breaks the game?). it's the rest of the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
wow, wrong thread lmao. the danger of posting with multiple reply tabs open.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 07:51
|
|