Grand Strategy Victoria 3

[thesecret1]

So the cat is absolutely out of the bag now and all the fears were justified and warranted in reference to the war system. You pick a general and click one of the three buttons - that's literally the entire extent of the grand player agency in this grand strategy game. No forts, no strategic infiltrations and raids, no forced marches, no doctrines (they are literally assigned randomly per battle according to general's traits).

Wow, that's some decline.

 

[Axioms]

I've waited for over a decade for a V2 successor only to be certain to ignore it.

If you care about the unique part of Vicky instead of the generic cross-paradox battle system why is this a big deal? Also your fault for trusting Paradox.

 

[Fedora Master]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/dev-diary-44-battles.1522286/

So the cat is absolutely out of the bag now and all the fears were justified and warranted in reference to the war system. You pick a general and click one of the three buttons - that's literally the entire extent of the grand player agency in this grand strategy game. No forts, no strategic infiltrations and raids, no forced marches, no doctrines (they are literally assigned randomly per battle according to general's traits).

I lost all faith in humanity reading the reactions to that dev diary.

And here we are, wondering why gaming is going to shit.

 

[thesecret1]

that's literally what heads of state do during wars

You don't play as a head of state in Victoria 2 though. The game doesn't end when you suffer a coup and similar. You play as the spirit of the nation or whatever.

 

[HeroMarine]

It's Sim City 2013 all over again.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

 

[IDtenT]

So I've been playing this all evening and eh... I'll buy it.

 

[Fedora Master]

So I've been playing this all evening and eh... I'll buy it.

Stop being part of the Problem.

 

[IDtenT]

Never knew having fun caused this much butthurt.

 

[Norfleet]

Fun is a filthy parasite!

 

[IDtenT]

Played it all evening into the early morning!

 

[Tigranes]

I'm not bothering with the leak, but the lack of direct control doesn't bother me either. Paradox doomstack war is the definition of degenerate, brainless gameplay and something I played other games in spite of, not for.

If I don't buy it on release, it would be because the economy turned out to be dumbed down, features stripped on launch version, stupid events philosophy, and so on. The battle system won't be the camel break straw back.

 

[Jugashvili]

Allowing you to put yourself in the general's seat defeats the purpose of cultivating a strong military and competent officer corps since the commander will always be le 1337 gaymer stratadjist and not some idiot who got promoted because of family connections.

The most concerning thing about Victoria 3 is that, judging by the

art, it's going to be a game about the 19th century made by people who hate the 19th century and everything it stands for. Nothing good can come out of that.

 

[MichaelB]

Allowing you to put yourself in the general's seat defeats the purpose of cultivating a strong military and competent officer corps since the commander will always be le 1337 gaymer stratadjist and not some idiot who got promoted because of family connections.

While this is true, I strongly disagree with that sentiment. It's all about the intended scope of the game: it is appropriate to give the player control over military, if that is the intention of the devs(which, here it unfortunately isn't); beyond that it is simply a lot of fun to command your own units, that you have outfitted and supplied yourself, and that are fighting for the expansion of the empire you've been building the whole game. So to me the ability to control units only enhances the experience because of the context of the rest of the game. In a sense it could be more satisfying to command units in this game, rather than in a dedicated strategy game, exactly because it fits the greater picture.

You could argue that every part of the simulation should receive similar treatment: instead of setting domestic policies on your own, you should 'cultivate' a cabinet of competent politicians, and then press the 'do policy' button, so that they can set and push for desired laws themselves. What about the economy? Simple - just cultivate a stack of intelligent ministers, who will make decisions on their own. Similarly, alliances and various dealings with other nations are to be controlled by preselected characters, with you, the player, only providing general guidance.

Because, you know, otherwise what's the point of handpicking those ministers if the player is always going to be le epic 420 Bismarck and make all the correct choices on their own? That way the whole structure can be deconstructed. I understand what they are going for, and while I think they're making a mistake, and that the game will lack a cool mechanic that it has had in the previous iterations, that's their decision to make. That said, let's not pretend this is somehow not an arbitrary(and quite radical) choice on their part, and just a natural consequence of making a game of this kind.

 

[thesecret1]

Paradox doomstack war is the definition of degenerate, brainless gameplay and something I played other games in spite of, not for.

I mean if you remove it from, say, EU4, there's pretty much nothing to actually do in that game... The doomstack war, while profoundly retarded (with strategies like "feed your units into it gradually to keep the morale up" and similar dumb shit, not to mention the ahistoricity of having armies clash every day for MONTHS in late middle ages) is one of the precious few things you can actively do as the player to break up the waiting game. Now, true, in Victoria 2, you didn't need this as there was plenty of other systems to interact with. Open a factory, influence minor countries, shift policy focus, etc. etc. Plus the combat was pretty shitty there, ngl. But this is modern Paradox we're talking about and I just can't bring myself to believe they'll deliver anything better than doomstacks Benny Hilling each other.

 

[Tigranes]

Sounds like a problem with the rest of the game design, and not a case for retaining dumbass doomstacks.

The same goes for the solution. Indirect war control is an excellent idea if they follow it up with communications problems, supply management, and the rest of the war machine - and their failure to do so (we'll see on release, I guess) is the issue, not the fact that it's indirect.

 

[IDtenT]

Paradox doomstack war is the definition of degenerate, brainless gameplay and something I played other games in spite of, not for.

I mean if you remove it from, say, EU4, there's pretty much nothing to actually do in that game... The doomstack war, while profoundly retarded (with strategies like "feed your units into it gradually to keep the morale up" and similar dumb shit, not to mention the ahistoricity of having armies clash every day for MONTHS in late middle ages) is one of the precious few things you can actively do as the player to break up the waiting game. Now, true, in Victoria 2, you didn't need this as there was plenty of other systems to interact with. Open a factory, influence minor countries, shift policy focus, etc. etc. Plus the combat was pretty shitty there, ngl. But this is modern Paradox we're talking about and I just can't bring myself to believe they'll deliver anything better than doomstacks Benny Hilling each other.

I've pretty much just been playing the market / industry the entire time. More than enough content and variability there to garner attention.

 

[Delterius]

I've pretty much just been playing the market / industry the entire time. More than enough content and variability there to garner attention.

yeah this game sounds like the anno of gsgs. with demographics and some diplomacy added on top.

 

[Jugashvili]

While this is true, I strongly disagree with that sentiment. It's all about the intended scope of the game: it is appropriate to give the player control over military, if that is the intention of the devs(which, here it unfortunately isn't); beyond that it is simply a lot of fun to command your own units, that you have outfitted and supplied yourself, and that are fighting for the expansion of the empire you've been building the whole game. So to me the ability to control units only enhances the experience because of the context of the rest of the game. In a sense it could be more satisfying to command units in this game, rather than in a dedicated strategy game, exactly because it fits the greater picture.

Micromanaging factories or railroad companies can be a lot of fun too and would fit in the greater picture too, but this isn't a tycoon game either. There is nothing wrong with a game focusing on one thing instead of trying to be everything at once.

You could argue that every part of the simulation should receive similar treatment: instead of setting domestic policies on your own, you should 'cultivate' a cabinet of competent politicians, and then press the 'do policy' button, so that they can set and push for desired laws themselves. What about the economy? Simple - just cultivate a stack of intelligent ministers, who will make decisions on their own. Similarly, alliances and various dealings with other nations are to be controlled by preselected characters, with you, the player, only providing general guidance.

Because, you know, otherwise what's the point of handpicking those ministers if the player is always going to be le epic 420 Bismarck and make all the correct choices on their own? That way the whole structure can be deconstructed. I understand what they are going for, and while I think they're making a mistake, and that the game will lack a cool mechanic that it has had in the previous iterations, that's their decision to make. That said, let's not pretend this is somehow not an arbitrary(and quite radical) choice on their part, and just a natural consequence of making a game of this kind.

First of all this is a reductio ad absurdum -- you are arguing that if a game cannot be everything at once, then it should be nothing at all. This is absurd, for obvious reasons. But apart from that, this is a Paradox game we're talking about -- they're pretty damn shallow in the first place. The amount of actual control you have over government affairs isn't that much greater than what you have over military matters -- you click a button and wait for years for something to happen (this makes Redditors feel very smart). In Vicky 2, raising literacy already was basically "cultivating a stack of priests and civil servants who will educate the population on their own". Inventions have a random chance of happening if you've got the required tech so, again, passively waiting around. Same with plenty of other pop-related mechanics -- there was hardly any player input required beyond changing focuses to reach certain desired pop levels and waiting around. If anything, a game about government should have more interesting executive-related decisions and less map-painting, which is just a crutch that gives you something to do while you're waiting 10 years for the steam turbine to be invented or someshit.

And that's why I think this game is going to be shit -- not because it won't have milsim elements, but because Paradox doesn't know how to make an interesting game without map painting.

 

[Axioms]

I've pretty much just been playing the market / industry the entire time. More than enough content and variability there to garner attention.

yeah this game sounds like the anno of gsgs. with demographics and some diplomacy added on top.

Well the diplomacy will by a typical Paradox shitfest. Their game data doesn't allow for interesting diplomacy.

 

[Hace El Oso]

The warfare that best suits the zeitgeist of the era that Victoria always seemed to most want to capture is gunboat diplomacy and small, mobile operations. Dispatching a ship and naval infantry to protect the legation/embassy/international quarter. Like the modern Congo Crisis, Battle of Kolwezi, and on the heavy side the Suez Crisis.

These could be recreated either with a reasonable measure of direct player control or simply through flavorful event chains created by people with a well-developed understanding of the time.
Imagine ‘The Sand Pebbles’

Spoiler

, but instead what they decide to go with is two buttons and two pure

3D models in Halloween costumes waggling sabres and swagger sticks at one another in a ring of fire.

 

[Sranchammer]

Mods will fix it!

 

[Delterius]

that Victoria always seemed to most want to capture is gunboat diplomacy and small, mobile operations

what

 

[Hace El Oso]

what

Not in gameplay, of course, paradox combat is universally without finesse. The era they seemed to me to be most closely targeting within the Victoria timeperiod with aesthetics, music, etc.

 

[Delterius]

what

Not in gameplay, of course, paradox combat is universally without finesse. The era they seemed to me to be most closely targeting within the Victoria timeperiod with aesthetics, music, etc.

Meh tbh. Franco Prussian war, American civil war, WW1, the liberal revolutions, the Taiping rebellions. These are all part of Victoria.