|
I think you could reasonably do a gradual transition based on techs affecting how morale and defense works - at the start of the game an outnumbered force would get defeated quickly and take steep losses retreating, while towards the end battles last long enough to reinforce units under attack, and defeated armies can fall back and regroup quickly. That way there'd be no hard transition between the two styles of warfare, just a gradual tipping point where the old ways stop being quite so effective. Kind of like the way it worked in the real world, where it took some time for generals to realize that attempts at grand, decisive battles like the Somme weren't actually such a good idea.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Game needs an option to say gently caress it, I don't want this province. It's like Portugal in EUIV after the latest few patches where you can't sell Ceuta because Morocco is always your rival even though (much like in real life) you would much rather be out colonizing and trading in peace than having to defend your lovely North African province. "I hate you forever because you hold the sacred clay of Our Land!" "Here, why don't you give me  and I'll give you your clay back.""No! gently caress you! We hate you!" "Okay, here you can have it for free." "This is a trick! Bastard pig dog! NO NO NO!" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:"I hate you forever because you hold the sacred clay of Our Land!" Probably historically accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
This is why you sell it to some gullible third party, preferably one that you want to weaken/distract 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:This is why you sell it to some gullible third party, preferably one that you want to weaken/distract This is the best thing to do in all situations. In EU3 when North Africa was just a black hole into which efficient technological process was lost forever, I would give those kinds of enclaves to an enemy so that they would either lose them or win wars and get more worthless land that helped me outtech them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Weird thought, but do you think that a Victoria game would work with HoI style units/combat? Vicky 2 uses a system similar to EU, and I find that it doesn't really do a great job at scaling up for the later game when you get into the WW1 era - even with your pops fully mobilized its hard to properly secure your fronts so you still end up playing a lot of whack a mole with enemy units pushing through the gaps in your defenses (either that or you spread your stacks so thin that they effectively offer no resistance). Plus, I kind of like the slow push of HoI battles where a unit that's defeated just falls back a province and regroups, which I feel better reflects the long, grinding nature of trench warfare, rather than having one huge pitched battle deciding the entire war the way it does in EU or CK. I guess gradually moving to the HoI system would be more realistic, but the only times I have ever had to whack a mole with enemies was in the very beginning when a single brigade of cavalry is enough to siege provinces and annoy you greatly if you ignore it. As soon as you get to like 1870 or so, every single war ends up mostly consisting of giant months-long battles that both sides keep throwing stacks into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:This is why you sell it to some gullible third party, preferably one that you want to weaken/distract Yeah. In fairness too, 99% of the time I use that option it's just to sell my English Continental holdings to France and be rid of them so I can consolidate Britain and play peaceful Simcity on my little island.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
combat isn't the point of vicky anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
when the hell is hoi4 going to have jan mayen? the people want to know!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:combat isn't the point of vicky anyway - Austria-Hungary, after losing every war
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
i can't bear to play hoi4 without it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:"I hate you forever because you hold the sacred clay of Our Land!" I've had two aborted Portugal games where Morocco and their allies would inevitably declare war on me over Ceuta and overrun my mainland provinces while I wasn't paying attention. That's totally on me for neglecting my military, but I wish it were possible for me to just dump that province at the start of the game. Is it possible to sell to a third party? I thought you'd just get the tooltip message about them not wanting it. On an only slightly related note, does anyone else think Paradox went too far in the other direction with how Westernization works? It seems like by the 17th century everyone and their mother is Westernized, especially in West Africa. It's better than the reverse problem of non-European powers just being minor roadblocks, but it does lead to everything feeling very samey. It's like they just can't find a happy medium even after four games. It would be more interesting and historically accurate if you start out in 1444 as a European nation struggling and getting your rear end kicked more often than not, while by 1821 you're steamrolling everything outside of Europe except for the handful of non-European powers (and not literally all of them) that managed to Westernize in the intervening period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Isn't there a return province button you can use to just give Ceuta back to morocco? Also why does iOS capitalize Ceuta but not morocco?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
you need one of the DLCs for that, I'm pretty sure
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Koramei posted:you need one of the DLCs for that, I'm pretty sure I've got them all and I couldn't find that drat button the other day. Thought I'd imagined it existed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:On an only slightly related note, does anyone else think Paradox went too far in the other direction with how Westernization works? It seems like by the 17th century everyone and their mother is Westernized, especially in West Africa. It's better than the reverse problem of non-European powers just being minor roadblocks, but it does lead to everything feeling very samey. It's like they just can't find a happy medium even after four games. It would be more interesting and historically accurate if you start out in 1444 as a European nation struggling and getting your rear end kicked more often than not, while by 1821 you're steamrolling everything outside of Europe except for the handful of non-European powers (and not literally all of them) that managed to Westernize in the intervening period. The upcoming patch is completely replacing the tech group and westernization systems with something that'll probably behave weirdly in new and exciting ways. Sindai fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:- Austria-Hungary, after losing every war 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I'd have to disagree, for me personally a lot of EUIV's appeal comes from the way games diverge from historical reality, given the same starting point. It's why I've never been interested in the Random New World DLC. Same to some degree, just balanced out by a mental peacenik tendency to play video games purely economically to build up the most beautiful and luxurious nations I really with trade routes could change in EUIV. There are some locales that look interesting geographically, but are in a dead end trade-wise. I remember EUIII had things about building new centers of trade and such...I suppose that must come in expansion pack 15
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:combat isn't the point of vicky anyway it would be if it was good
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:it would be if it was good It honestly needs less combat focus not more. It's a factory building simulator nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:On an only slightly related note, does anyone else think Paradox went too far in the other direction with how Westernization works? It seems like by the 17th century everyone and their mother is Westernized, especially in West Africa. It's better than the reverse problem of non-European powers just being minor roadblocks, but it does lead to everything feeling very samey. It's like they just can't find a happy medium even after four games. It would be more interesting and historically accurate if you start out in 1444 as a European nation struggling and getting your rear end kicked more often than not, while by 1821 you're steamrolling everything outside of Europe except for the handful of non-European powers (and not literally all of them) that managed to Westernize in the intervening period. The EU4 dev team agrees. It just took them a while to think of a better system, but it drops this month alongside the new expansion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 06:53
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Stairmaster posted:it would be if it was good Vicky combat is ok, the lovely part is managing/rebuilding your armies when they shatter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
the fundamental difference between hoi combat and all other paradox combat is that armies in hoi occupy provinces as soon as they move into them but in other games you need to siege. that completely changes how you have to think about a war. i dont know how you would do smooth transition between those two styles
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
I think a mix of the hoi style occupation with the new forts mechanics from EU4 would work nicely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:the fundamental difference between hoi combat and all other paradox combat is that armies in hoi occupy provinces as soon as they move into them but in other games you need to siege. that completely changes how you have to think about a war. i dont know how you would do smooth transition between those two styles Have a repeatable tech that lowers siege time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
I find Victoria 2 pretty much unplayable as a nation of any real size (EG: Russia) because industrialisation requires you to tediously micro-manage building factories and railways in so many places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Gort posted:I find Victoria 2 pretty much unplayable as a nation of any real size (EG: Russia) because industrialisation requires you to tediously micro-manage building factories and railways in so many places. Hold shift while upgrading railroads to upgrade all the railroads in the region. Similarly, hold shift while upgrading full factories to upgrade every full factory at once.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Just go full-on liberal and enact productivity-friendly policy
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:Have a repeatable tech that lowers siege time? I think combining it with Jabor's idea could work. Jabor posted:I think you could reasonably do a gradual transition based on techs affecting how morale and defense works - at the start of the game an outnumbered force would get defeated quickly and take steep losses retreating, while towards the end battles last long enough to reinforce units under attack, and defeated armies can fall back and regroup quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:Hold shift while upgrading railroads to upgrade all the railroads in the region. I knew this and I'm not sure it's particularly relevant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
The main problem I had with playing any major nation in Victoria 2, but especially huge ones like China and Russia, was micromanaging huge armies. Once a Great War starts and you hit the button to mobilize, you end up with way too many units that need to be carefully micromanaged to avoid attrition. Features from HoI4 (like the battle planner and strategic redeployment) would help immensely with that though, so if they ever make V3 I hope they'll copy that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Gort posted:I knew this and I'm not sure it's particularly relevant. State Capitalism and increasing literacy is the answer. Let your capitalists do it for you. Apoffys posted:The main problem I had with playing any major nation in Victoria 2, but especially huge ones like China and Russia, was micromanaging huge armies. Once a Great War starts and you hit the button to mobilize, you end up with way too many units that need to be carefully micromanaged to avoid attrition. Features from HoI4 (like the battle planner and strategic redeployment) would help immensely with that though, so if they ever make V3 I hope they'll copy that. Don't mobilize then  Professional armies should be enough to overwhelm anyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
Actually the real solution is to have all your professional armies not have any soldiers in them, and then plug in your conscripts into them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
The real way to win late game World Wars is build to win the early 1836-70 era so hard as a secondary power that the WW is an afterthought. Or play China. Even with the nerfing of China by cutting it up into pieces, it's still really easy to become an unstoppable juggernaut by WW1 era.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
I think my thing is that I just want a game that combines the detailed economy in Victoria with the detailed warfare from HoI. I like the strategic depth of HoI but because it's entirely war-focused, most of the economic options are non-decisions (no reason not to crank up to war economy as soon as possible and just leave it there since it's objectively better even in peacetime). Manpower in HoI and EU is basically just another resource like money where so long as you have more than zero, you're fine. Meanwhile, in Victoria you have to make decisions between focusing on economy or warfare - you can build factories that produce tanks but that doesn't mean you citizens will stop needing food and clothing. Likewise, the manpower pool in Victoria is actually drawn from you population, so losses mean something even if you win - every dead conscript is one less craftsman working in your factories or farmer working on your plantations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
For me Victoria breaks down when it comes to replacing a bunch of brigades in various armies after a war because the source pops get too small. I like the system in theory but in practice I would like a button to connect all redlined brigades to fresh pops, or even just have a general manpower pool. I also don't like the random element of getting badboy while forging claims on territory, and how war claims are always max badboy. How would something like the U.S.'s acquisitions in the Spanish American war even be possible when the Philippines alone has three states?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Lmao American acquisitions from the Mexican American War arnt even possible with the current system in Vicky 2
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Randallteal posted:I also don't like the random element of getting badboy while forging claims on territory, and how war claims are always max badboy. How would something like the U.S.'s acquisitions in the Spanish American war even be possible when the Philippines alone has three states? You could probably also have random events which have a variety of different effects, perhaps having a chance to trigger when diplomatic offers are sent. They could heat up or cool down the crisis (within a band to not trigger an automatic war/loss of CB), or grant additional appropriate CB (for either side), or possibly country modifiers which could have various effects, from reducing militancy in the face of foreign aggression to rebellion in the province which has been targeted for conquest/liberation. That said, while I'm arguing for randomness here, I think it should be back-loaded, so the player would be better able to decide how much randomness they'll accept. You could have is so maybe the initial badboy you get for the original CB is going to always be in the range of 80-100% of the base cost, and define the base cost around that number, and then slowly ramp up the chance of random events as the crisis progresses towards the end. *While I'm using the term crises, it's not meant in the sense that this should work entirely the same, with GP's always getting involved in poo poo. I guess they could at times, but I'm thinking basically taking the idea to another level where what happens during a crisis can be a bit more varied. Agean90 posted:Lmao American acquisitions from the Mexican American War arnt even possible with the current system in Vicky 2
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:. I haven't played Vicky in years, but I remember PDM adding a China-explodes-into-warlord-cliques event that was crazy fun. You just play that and ignore the rest of the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
I just hope there will be a DLC for EU4 with some sweet alternate history. Like MiscMod did (Years of Rice and Salt in EU4 please).
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 15:34
|
|
