|
I'm also a little disappointed because the abstract military mechanics would have been a perfect way to model the more asymmetric and irregular wars around colonialism, but unfortunately that's just not really implemented now
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I'm also a little disappointed because the abstract military mechanics would have been a perfect way to model the more asymmetric and irregular wars around colonialism, but unfortunately that's just not really implemented now I think they tried to do this by giving natives large defense buffs but it mostly just lead to people going 'how do these natives have such strong armies'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
tbf, making decentralized armies space marines instead of just jacking up your attrition makes that point confusing
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Ways to diplomatically bring someone into a customs union or protectorate would also help. Sphering in Vicky 2 was kind of a weird minigame, but it made a real difference to be able to grab resources by applying diplomatic pressure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Ways to diplomatically bring someone into a customs union or protectorate would also help. Sphering in Vicky 2 was kind of a weird minigame, but it made a real difference to be able to grab resources by applying diplomatic pressure. At least sphere of influence should have this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
One of the problems with realistic wars is that realistic wars loving suck to fight. Imagine playing as the Ottomans in EU4 and having to recall your army every six months back to Constantinople or losing a war because the Danube flooded in March and you couldn't move your army past Budapest until June. Honestly, this is why I really wanted abstract warfare outside of player control, but that's not a thing that PDX players want - they want the ability to march armies through the jungles of Annam after taking a 12,000 mile boat ride. Look at the player revolt that nearly happened because fort ZOCs got added to EU4 and you couldn't rush the opponent's capitol in a game of 17th century warfare (like, literally the era of siege warfare for Western Europe). It would be great if Paradox added a mechanic so you can't just stomp half way across the world to conquer oil and rubber provinces at the game start, but that's not something that players seem to want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:34
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:One of the problems with realistic wars is that realistic wars loving suck to fight. okay but this is the victoria 3 thread where the abstracted warfare outside of player control mostly is. we can have that here and we almost certainly are gonna get it when they do a war focused expansion
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
The concept of a limited war is something these games need to toy around with more imo. HoI4 does it a little bit but I haven't been hands on with it more than once or twice. But V3 could definitely do something like, "this war is less diplomatically involved and you can only push very limited wargoals, but only armies/regiments trained in the specific and maybe adjacent regions can get involved". It would serve to reflect some things like colonial wars and prevent situations like Japan having to deal with 500 Russian regulars and a fully mobilised reserve over Port Arthur or Britain resolving a minor spat in the Great Game by making a landing on St Petersburg. And it would require players to invest in their colonial garrisons if they want to have a serious colonial empire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 01:04
|
|
|
I think that expanding on the logistics of war would also play into the general themes of Victoria 3, where war is supposed to be more about economics than making the little mans walk around the map. I can see how there would be some design conflicts there - a full HoI4 style system of tracking supply chains would have issues because you can't actually tell your troops exactly where to go, but it still seems like the sort of system that would fit the game better than putting more focus on direct management of units.YF-23 posted:The concept of a limited war is something these games need to toy around with more imo. HoI4 does it a little bit but I haven't been hands on with it more than once or twice. But V3 could definitely do something like, "this war is less diplomatically involved and you can only push very limited wargoals, but only armies/regiments trained in the specific and maybe adjacent regions can get involved". It would serve to reflect some things like colonial wars and prevent situations like Japan having to deal with 500 Russian regulars and a fully mobilised reserve over Port Arthur or Britain resolving a minor spat in the Great Game by making a landing on St Petersburg. And it would require players to invest in their colonial garrisons if they want to have a serious colonial empire. Yeah, this is a common problem when playing as an unrecognized nation or minor power, where if a GP decides to start sniffing around your territory you tend to completely lose the ability to expand because said GP will pour their entire army in to defend the (also unrecognized) OPM next to you simply because they've declared an interest in the region. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 01:09
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:The concept of a limited war is something these games need to toy around with more imo. HoI4 does it a little bit but I haven't been hands on with it more than once or twice. But V3 could definitely do something like, "this war is less diplomatically involved and you can only push very limited wargoals, but only armies/regiments trained in the specific and maybe adjacent regions can get involved". It would serve to reflect some things like colonial wars and prevent situations like Japan having to deal with 500 Russian regulars and a fully mobilised reserve over Port Arthur or Britain resolving a minor spat in the Great Game by making a landing on St Petersburg. And it would require players to invest in their colonial garrisons if they want to have a serious colonial empire. In theory a really good logistics system would solve that problem without needing specific handling for limited wars I think. The Russians would have been perfectly happy to send 2 million men to occupy manchuria and korea in 1905, but they could not do that at the end of the extremely long, single track trans-siberian railway (which iirc at the time still had a gap around Lake Baikal). Similarly the British really could not supply a big naval invasion against St. Petersburg during the Crimean War. Logistics and finance are what kept wars limited in real life, so if modeled well then that would apply in the game too. In practice, this is probably loving hard to get right through emergent behavior and they'll have to make an explicit limited war system
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
It is the next natural Big Thing after spheres of influence/foreign investment to tackle, unless i'm forgetting something (diplo play rework?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:04
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Look at the player revolt that nearly happened because fort ZOCs got added to EU4 and you couldn't rush the opponent's capitol in a game of 17th century warfare (like, literally the era of siege warfare for Western Europe). To be fair, a lot of the irritation is that the AI would happily run around your territory mostly unchecked, while it felt like it was impossible to walk through AI territory. A lot of that boiled down to pathing quirks that the AI could "see" easily (and its ability to get military access with everyone), while players had a hard time figuring out exactly how to move around a country. I really can't wait for Vic3 warfare to be more abstracted than it is - chasing front lines down bit by bit is godawful, and while it's substantially better than it was before, there are still some really silly edge cases that show up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 03:22
|
|
|
Naval logistics are probably an even bigger glaring problem than land; after all, a big part of the logic of period colonialism to begin with was first defensible coaling stations and then doing something inland to defray the costs of said coaling stations. I'd call it up there, both in importance and in intractability given other design choices, with the decision to make coal and water power generation equally "mobile" rather than coal uniquely concentratable in specifically urban centers or even for specific factories within them regardless of their placement, such that you don't get an explosion of private development in what are already your biggest logistical pulls as coal power comes online (and you could probably get a good distance toward that one by just limiting the building cap of hydro plants severely and requiring them to be built from the government queue.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 08:03
|
|
|
Yaoi Gagarin posted:In theory a really good logistics system would solve that problem without needing specific handling for limited wars I think. The Russians would have been perfectly happy to send 2 million men to occupy manchuria and korea in 1905, but they could not do that at the end of the extremely long, single track trans-siberian railway (which iirc at the time still had a gap around Lake Baikal). Similarly the British really could not supply a big naval invasion against St. Petersburg during the Crimean War. Logistics and finance are what kept wars limited in real life, so if modeled well then that would apply in the game too. Perhaps a system where you have a logistics rating in a theater that functions as a hard limit. And more restrictions on combat width depending on terrain, mediated by logistics difficulty. (So running logistics through a long swathe of hostile mountains would sharply limit both the number of men you can have at the front and reinforcement speed.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 10:06
|
|
|
Honestly I think the problem with doing limited wars as a pure outgrowth of logistics is player fscomg: how do you express in big flashing letters to the player "you can't actually ship your armies through Siberia" so they have information to go on?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:34
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Honestly I think the problem with doing limited wars as a pure outgrowth of logistics is player fscomg: how do you express in big flashing letters to the player "you can't actually ship your armies through Siberia" so they have information to go on? The game already does "you can't actually ship your armies through the Sahara", though you also can't build anything there either. It just doesn't represent "people live here but armies can't operate here" very well. The problem in general is that it's extremely annoying and expensive to put an army somewhere, and even worse to keep it there for any length of time, and even worse than that to send it far away, but no Paradox game really gets anywhere close to representing that. Though if they did, it would be very, very difficult to make it fun, because it'd need a fundamental rework of how the military systems work in these games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 15:08
|
|
|
Wars should be economically punishing all around, if you want to be "realistic". The reason Russia didn't invade Japan over Port Arthur wasn't just logistics, it's that the cost of doing so would be economically, politically, and probably diplomatically ruinous. Realistically there should be much more serious consequences to military actions. But that would make every war an unfun slog of overcoming a bunch of bullshit to do anything. As a game, it's more fun to have more freedom to act. I don't think the solution would be to make attrition more realistically devastating. Maybe it should be raised a bit in obviously difficult terrain, in a way that's clear to the player. But the real solution should be to add a gamey abstraction to nudge things in the right direction, in lieu of simulating a lot of bullshit. Maybe you could have a basic "theater" system where you can only fight in the regions relevant to the wargoal, and possibly only with a portion of your troops, unless you click a button to expand the scope of the war at the cost of infamy/radicalism/what have you. Make it cheap to expand the theater to territories you border, and pretty expensive to expand it to St Petersburg when you're supposed to be fighting over Crimea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 15:22
|
|
|
I lost a state in Africa due to rebels, that's fine the neighbouring colony state has a port and I can just move the- no I actually can't? The front is 100% unreachable? Why? Have to do a naval invasion because that is obviously the only way to bring the army over. Couldn't possibly just board ships and sail into the port and move out from there. Nope. The only thing I could think of was that the map graphics port was in another nation (and it's impossible to get army movement access?) and that somehow means the state is not actually accessible to move into? The place has a port. But it's not a port that is possible to move soldiers through? It's a cargo and migrants port only? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 15:55
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:okay but this is the victoria 3 thread where the abstracted warfare outside of player control mostly is. we can have that here and we almost certainly are gonna get it when they do a war focused expansion I'm not so sure about that although I would certainly love to see it happen. Eiba posted:Wars should be economically punishing all around, if you want to be "realistic". The reason Russia didn't invade Japan over Port Arthur wasn't just logistics, it's that the cost of doing so would be economically, politically, and probably diplomatically ruinous. Realistically there should be much more serious consequences to military actions. I like your idea. I'm hoping that PDX really does something that limits where you can go for your wars of conquest because right now a lot of what you can do is both infuriating to be on the receiving end of or just players doing cheesy stuff to take advantage of the AI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
Wars being poo poo would be good since Itd let me play tall more and have wars be better stress tests
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Poil posted:I lost a state in Africa due to rebels, that's fine the neighbouring colony state has a port and I can just move the- no I actually can't? The front is 100% unreachable? Why? Have to do a naval invasion because that is obviously the only way to bring the army over. Couldn't possibly just board ships and sail into the port and move out from there. Nope. The only thing I could think of was that the map graphics port was in another nation (and it's impossible to get army movement access?) and that somehow means the state is not actually accessible to move into? The place has a port. But it's not a port that is possible to move soldiers through? It's a cargo and migrants port only? Was it Kongo? There is a bug that makes the Congolese front inaccessible. If you can make a colonial army in that state that army can run around their and fight off rebels/uprisings. I like the idea of having to declare initial fronts as part of a diplomatic play. Maybe you can get more as the war drags on. Also, there should defiantly be a limit on naval range dictated on where your colonies are, it was a driving force of the era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
Yeah, it was kind of a turn-off hearing strats like "cap NYC year 1 for the power generation" like that would ever happen. And why would NYC by itself with no other NA holdings be an energy hub for an empire in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Yeah, it was kind of a turn-off hearing strats like "cap NYC year 1 for the power generation" like that would ever happen. And why would NYC by itself with no other NA holdings be an energy hub for an empire in the first place? Or other things like "immediately capture Yemen and SA countries like Venezuela or Chile as soon as the game starts". Yemen and the Andes mountains, both famously easy to conquer and govern.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Wars should be economically punishing all around, if you want to be "realistic". The reason Russia didn't invade Japan over Port Arthur wasn't just logistics, it's that the cost of doing so would be economically, politically, and probably diplomatically ruinous. Realistically there should be much more serious consequences to military actions. The problem with an escalate play is that it then becomes even clearer that you need to support escalation up to WW1, and escalation up to WW1 probably means a bespoke war settlement system that looks more like HoI's plus ticking rounds of peace negotiation during it. Easy to describe particular points I'd like it to do, very hard to make cohesive, never mind to rig the AI to use effectively. As for early-grab strats, I do think those are primarily a problem with something deeper than even how the game implements war. In the end, we as players have a near-perfect view of resource and development potentials if we look, certainly a far better one than historical just out of pop culture osmosis. This means we can identify 1836 Arabia or Venezuela or Japan as pushovers sitting in what will be great positions in the 1920s, and just jump and grab them, rather than the historical path where the first was jumped on and grabbed by the British but as a commanding overlook of shipping in the vein of the Bahamas and the latter two were mostly let be. But we also want each tag to perform as it should in reality in case we want to play it or a neighbor, so there can't be enough of a buff to tags on "destined"-for-geopolitical-significance land, and conversely we want the world to "look like it should" and can't decree that this seed the oil is all in Poland while rubber grows in Ohio and upstart Asian power Borneo has teched into the need for coal and iron in mass quantities and is justifying colonialism to itself so it can peel off the huge deposits in Dai Nam. That is, no movement in the early game is just as unrealistic as rapid grabs of specific pieces of land that will become very valuable in the future and thus isn't the solution, but also if allowing movement in the early game it will inevitably be based on the extra knowledge we bring to the game unless we abandon simulationism entirely, something which the engine itself isn't built for--I don't think we want the EU4 random new world code back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 21:59
|
|
|
I think the balance between that is having to simulate your immediate/near term goals and demands and also the expenses of those sort of things, where sure sniping japan day1 may eventually pay off and scale but it's going to be an amazing money sink that comes at the expense of a bunch of other poo poo you need right now, to say it simply
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 22:21
|
|
|
The problem with that is that in turn you have to look at the cases where immediate and long-term goals happened to align, whether it was the British domination of Arabia or US expansionism into Mexico, and craft rules that allow them while forbidding the others. I'm leaning on those, because, well, oil. Behavior like the US's is what is theoretically desired, a gradual expansion from one set of natural borders to a subsequent greater set with sensible domestic political logic ("this is a frontier region, we're simply denying previous treaty assignments".) But it breaks down if, say, the US is allowed to be run by New Englanders with a naval focus and no real interest in admitting more of what might become slave states under the then-current compromise: what rules allow for the taking of Texas, and then the rest of New Mexico and Alta California in a punitive war over its continued dispute, yet doesn't allow for an Old Three Hundred setting sail for Ezo, overwhelming the Japanese colonies there, and then biting off the more populous Tohoku as punishment when that's not completely respected? (Other than, ironically, the long-term goal of oil reserves.) You could say that the southerners being out of power and their interests removed should produce a civil war which the AI would shy away from, but then why would the player with foreknowledge not welcome settling things early unless the actual material basis of power is overwhelmingly southern? And if the actual material basis of power is overwhelmingly southern, then what changes were necessary to how early-game industrialization and militaries work to accomplish that? Mandoric fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
Mandoric posted:As for early-grab strats, I do think those are primarily a problem with something deeper than even how the game implements war. In the end, we as players have a near-perfect view of resource and development potentials if we look, certainly a far better one than historical just out of pop culture osmosis. This means we can identify 1836 Arabia or Venezuela or Japan as pushovers sitting in what will be great positions in the 1920s, and just jump and grab them, rather than the historical path where the first was jumped on and grabbed by the British but as a commanding overlook of shipping in the vein of the Bahamas and the latter two were mostly let be. But we also want each tag to perform as it should in reality in case we want to play it or a neighbor, so there can't be enough of a buff to tags on "destined"-for-geopolitical-significance land, and conversely we want the world to "look like it should" and can't decree that this seed the oil is all in Poland while rubber grows in Ohio and upstart Asian power Borneo has teched into the need for coal and iron in mass quantities and is justifying colonialism to itself so it can peel off the huge deposits in Dai Nam. I think the main issue people have with land grabs isn't that they're effective but that the AIs do absolutely nothing to stop you from dipping into their spheres of influence and taking the best bits. Like, the most common "just go conquer this ASAP" territory in the whole game is Borneo, which was pretty securely under the influence of both GB and the Netherlands, it shouldn't be impossible to go mess with Brunei but there should be some kind of push back from the powers which are already in the region (part of what makes this difficult is that diplo plays are more like war declarations with extra steps than a negotiation process). Even more so for the Boer republics; GB should really not be OK with anyone else having a significant influence in South Africa, and should generally just have a high desire to control that territory because of its strategic significance (and especially once gold is discovered there) RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
I just saw this thread and apparently Vicky3 has actually been released??? Long time EU4 player, how many years should I plan to wait before this game is actually playable? Or is it by some paradox miracle decent as is?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I just saw this thread and apparently Vicky3 has actually been released??? Long time EU4 player, how many years should I plan to wait before this game is actually playable? Or is it by some paradox miracle decent as is? At the moment it has big issues with performance and a lot of people aren't happy with it. It's not a disaster by any means but it still kinda feels like early access. Edit: I may have sounded too harsh. Plenty of people aren't happy with EU4 either, and it doesn't stop it from being a great game. I really don't like dropping campaigns and try to play till the end so I'm looking for some improvements for performance, as I think everyone agrees it's not up to snuff for the moment. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Apr 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
It's really good, but it's got that big "Can't play till the expansion comes out" energy going right now cause Sphere of Influence is going to fix a lot of complaints about the game. But it is in fact perfectly playable if you don't want to wait till the tail end of June.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I just saw this thread and apparently Vicky3 has actually been released??? Long time EU4 player, how many years should I plan to wait before this game is actually playable? Or is it by some paradox miracle decent as is? if the victoria series is your poo poo victoria 3 has been the best yet since release
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 20:06
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I just saw this thread and apparently Vicky3 has actually been released??? Long time EU4 player, how many years should I plan to wait before this game is actually playable? Or is it by some paradox miracle decent as is? It's more playable than Vicky 2 has ever been
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I just saw this thread and apparently Vicky3 has actually been released??? Long time EU4 player, how many years should I plan to wait before this game is actually playable? Or is it by some paradox miracle decent as is? Wait for 4
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
Vicky 3 is good and I have spent most of my Paradox playing time on it since it has released. It is also getting a lot better soon with the next expansion release.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 21:02
|
|
|
Hey guys just came back to the game did they fix the front splitting issue yet? Fake edit; just kidding it hasn’t been changed since release in any way that matters Fellblade fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:Vicky 3 is good and I have spent most of my Paradox playing time on it since it has released. It is also getting a lot better soon with the next expansion release. Kind of insane how hyped I am for foreign investment lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 21:06
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I just saw this thread and apparently Vicky3 has actually been released??? Long time EU4 player, how many years should I plan to wait before this game is actually playable? Or is it by some paradox miracle decent as is? It is quite good in its current state, but as Zeron said the upcoming June update will bring some much-desired changes. One of the biggest issues currently (at least for me) is the AI making poor building choices and not exploiting its resources aggressively enough, which makes getting access to those resources when you don't directly control them a pain - the update will overhaul building ownership and let you do foreign investments which should benefit soft power expanders a lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:Hey guys just came back to the game did they fix the front splitting issue yet? For the benefit of anyone who's actually in this position and isn't memeing, front splitting is much more predictable now and while it's still a huge pain in the rear end, it's at the level of annoying vs. often actually making the game unplayable in earlier versions Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I just saw this thread and apparently Vicky3 has actually been released??? Long time EU4 player, how many years should I plan to wait before this game is actually playable? Or is it by some paradox miracle decent as is? Game is good, the biggest problems are extremely bad late game performance and the AI is very not good at playing the game (charitably, we could say that the AI roleplays, but the end result of this is countries which build giant armies and never pass more progressive laws leading them to become relatively underdeveloped industrially). But patch 1.7 is going to rework so much stuff that anything could change at this point, maybe the AI will be way better at making building decisions under the new system, who knows
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
the foreign ownership change making it so owner POPs don't have to live in the same state is going to be so crucial for actually depicting colonialism as the wealth extraction system it was, rather than a wealth investment system like now. im hype.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
Fellblade posted:Hey guys just came back to the game did they fix the front splitting issue yet? Nah, it has changed for the better in a lot of ways. Still fucky around the borders of multiple small nations, but otherwise it's a lot better. Also you can have multiple fights along one front, so a China/Russia conflict is not only one front, but has multiple battles raging at the same time, which is a welcome change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 22:08
|
|