|
I thought Victoria did a reasonably good job of simulating the Great War. The shift from horses to planes, making gas so powerful without a counter, and the increasing reliance on mobilization and the devastating effects it could have on your country were all very well done. What I don't think it does well is the six subsequent Great Wars that fire off between absolutely crippled countries.
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:
Gonna make 3 look as much like 2's intro as possible
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
If they improve the battle AI a bit it'd be amazing in Vicky if you couldn't directly control your troops, only give general orders. I wanna feel like Lincoln cycling through AotP generals or sack Field Marshal after Field Marshal as the years of static front drag on.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:If they improve the battle AI a bit it'd be amazing in Vicky if you couldn't directly control your troops, only give general orders. I wanna feel like Lincoln cycling through AotP generals or sack Field Marshal after Field Marshal as the years of static front drag on. Saaaame.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:If they improve the battle AI a bit it'd be amazing in Vicky if you couldn't directly control your troops, only give general orders. I wanna feel like Lincoln cycling through AotP generals or sack Field Marshal after Field Marshal as the years of static front drag on. This would honestly be amazing but unfortunately, player-controlled armies are kinda non-negotiable for most. It would be seriously cool though if your armies hinged on the quality of your generals and military staff and how they would conduct the war on your behalf. Some rear end in a top hat general making a clown of himself costing you the entire war but can't be replaced because of his political connections would be right up my alley. I love it when you actually have to deal with incompetent morons in your nation.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
BillBear posted:This would honestly be amazing but unfortunately, player-controlled armies are kinda non-negotiable for most. It would be seriously cool though if your armies hinged on the quality of your generals and military staff and how they would conduct the war on your behalf. Some rear end in a top hat general making a clown of himself costing you the entire war but can't be replaced because of his political connections would be right up my alley. I love it when you actually have to deal with incompetent morons in your nation. I think for that to work you'd have to have big enough provinces where you could shuffle a lot of the military detail into a black box so you're not just watching the AI do dumb poo poo so I don't really think the automated military really fits the design as currently done. It'd probably be an ideal way to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
reddit post posted:4 ticks per day, so the number of ticks per campaign is similar to EU4. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:do you understand the schleswig-holstein question
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:nah the long 19th century just isn't complete without a giant hellwar or two to cap it off, I don't care how bad the game is at representing it, it being in is non-negotiable
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:do you understand the schleswig-holstein question I love that quote from Lord Palmerston that made it sound like Schleswig-Holstein was part of the Cthulhu Mythos
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:If they improve the battle AI a bit it'd be amazing in Vicky if you couldn't directly control your troops, only give general orders. I wanna feel like Lincoln cycling through AotP generals or sack Field Marshal after Field Marshal as the years of static front drag on. If they can do things that if you fire mcclellan his faction says gently caress it and tries to overthrow your current government that would be great
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Zeron posted:MORE. FLAGS. The game should have a Commonwealth variant with a Union Jack in the corner for every single tag in the game. British France, British Prussia, British Brittany, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Can you have condominiums in Victoria 3, to model the outcome of e.g. the Schleswig war?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
Takanago posted:The game should have a Commonwealth variant with a Union Jack in the corner for every single tag in the game. British France, British Prussia, British Brittany, etc. After Poland-Lithuania gets restored through crises: British Commonwealth.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I'm not really a fan of the end date being as late as 1936 to be honest. The world before and after WW1 is just too different and the Victoria games were never good at actually simulating WW1 or its aftermath. And yeah, the awareness that a WW1 is likely on the horizon might very well be necessary to put the player in the right mindset for the 20th century years, making it less important that the actual war itself is perfectly simulated, because the real point is the influence on domestic policy leading up to it, and the effects of the war on domestic policy afterward. That said, they can for sure make the actual end of the war more satisfying, more seemingly final, and make the aftermath more interesting. Gaius Marius posted:I thought Victoria did a reasonably good job of simulating the Great War. The shift from horses to planes, making gas so powerful without a counter, and the increasing reliance on mobilization and the devastating effects it could have on your country were all very well done. Definitely need to add something to prevent subsequent Great Wars though. Making any conscripted pops far more pacifist and radical would help, as would making something akin to the League of Nations that strongly encourages beating up minor countries over having big confrontations. The end of the war triggering rebellions and independence wars all over the place could also help distract the GPs, by making them want to win the peace rather than start off some new trouble. Takanago posted:The game should have a Commonwealth variant with a Union Jack in the corner for every single tag in the game. British France, British Prussia, British Brittany, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 05:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I feel like the idea is that EVERY combination is possible, because the country in charge just superimposes their own flag on the canton. That sounds like the easiest way to do it by far, rather than having to custom make tens of thousands of flags. I can't wait to see what a Zulu-overlord US flag looks like
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 06:40
|
|
|
Did Victoria 2 have anything resembling an arms-race as a thing to happen? Since the build up of the German Navy was a major driving force in British foreign policy towards the 1910s, it would be interesting to see countries react to the developments of other countries, rather than just the active actions.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 07:29
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:If they improve the battle AI a bit it'd be amazing in Vicky if you couldn't directly control your troops, only give general orders. I wanna feel like Lincoln cycling through AotP generals or sack Field Marshal after Field Marshal as the years of static front drag on. A kind of Majesty GSG, I like it. But I don't think Vicky 3 of all games would be the right game to experiment with something like that. Charlz Guybon posted:I want the player (Prussia) to be able to accept the King of Denmark's offer to join the German confederation in 1864. Strange avatar-post combination 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 07:36
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:Did Victoria 2 have anything resembling an arms-race as a thing to happen? Since the build up of the German Navy was a major driving force in British foreign policy towards the 1910s, it would be interesting to see countries react to the developments of other countries, rather than just the active actions. Not as far as I can remember. If there was, then it was obfuscated behind the black box AI and not any sort of player-facing system. Pakled fucked around with this message at 07:49 on May 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 07:46
|
|
|
It existed only in as much that making late game navies pushed up your mil score by a rediculous amount which would make you into the top GP unless the AI did the same
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 08:56
|
|
|
There's incentive for a country like Germsny to build a giant navy they don't need (mil score), which gets pretty close. Navies are expensive, aswell. Vicky 2 does alot of these things where they almost simulate real decision making well, which is why we're all so hypes for vicky 3.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 09:04
|
|
|
Fondly remembering playing Portugal in Vic2 and desperately trying to pump out battleships to raise my military score but only having four provinces from where I could produce the naval tin cans.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 09:20
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:If they improve the battle AI a bit it'd be amazing in Vicky if you couldn't directly control your troops, only give general orders. I wanna feel like Lincoln cycling through AotP generals or sack Field Marshal after Field Marshal as the years of static front drag on. By that point you'd probably be better off removing the armies and ships from the map and simulating the war without them. It'd be too frustrating to see your armies doing dumb things like attacking across rivers onto mountains
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 09:26
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:The main thing that makes Great Wars annoying Victoria is that it's just a real slog ordering all those units around. I feel like some kind of simplified version of the battle planner from HoI4 would help a lot there, even just the ability to designate a front line and have your mobilized troops automatically spread themselves evenly along it rather than piling up on your rally points. So much of HoI4 could be lifted as is and make wars better. 1. The frontline system and battle plans. Increase the penalty for lack of planning over time, by WW1 era just make it so punitive that the only way to make war is with plans. This greatly reduces micro, and produces the appropriate "fight a month for 15 yards" experience. 2. Combat power = manpower + training + goods. That is, don't just have artillery and small arms as things you need to build units with, have units actually be leaky bags of goods, where it's current combat power depends on what it currently has. 3. Actually, just split artillery & small arms into many by tech level. This works even better than the "infantry equipment" in HoI4, simply because differences between levels are greater and come less often. Something like: - muzzleloaded smoothbore - muzzleloaded Minié ball rifle (ex. Minié (duh), Springfield Model 1861) - needle firing breech loaded (ex. Dreyse, Chassepot) - black powder cartridge rifle (ex. Gras, Mauser 71) - early smokeless powder cartridge rifle (ex. Lebel) - modern bolt-action magazine rifle (Mauser 98, SMLE) - heavy machine gun (Maxim, Vickers) - early light machine gun (Madsen, Chauchat, BAR) - early submachinegun (MP18, OVP 1918) - interwar light machinegun (ZB vz. 28) - shot-firing muzzle-loaded smoothbore (ex. Système Valée) - shell-firing muzzle-loaded smoothbore (ex. Canon obusier de 12, the us civil war gun) - muzzle-loaded rifled gun (ex. Système La Hitte, or 3-inch ordnance rifle) - breech-loaded steel gun (ex. Krupp C64) - smokeless powder, cased, fixed ammo, recoil brake (ex. Canon de 75 modèle 1897) - gun-howitzer (ex. 10.5 cm Fh 98) - heavy gun-howitzer (ex. 15 cm sFH 02) - split trails, he shells (these are maybe not new models, but tech that improves existing ones) - mortars And yes, each level of those would be a separate good that could be traded between countries, and would require setting up new factories. Isn't this a whole lot of complexity in weapons for a game that's not about war? The reason they should be split is all the ways in which they impact you when not at war. The invention of a new, more efficient way to kill people was not met with the kind of glee a wargamer has when he unlocks a new tech, but with dread that now all of your very expensive equipment is obsolete again and you're now going to have to spend all that money that you would have rather spent of social reforms or gold-plated yachts for the capitalists on military equipment instead, or if you don't, your neighbors certainly will and then you're screwed. If the game is sufficiently realistic, all the dreams of building a worker's paradise are going to crash on the rocks of: "But we need new artillery to deter the capitalist pigs, so get back to the lathe for your second shift." More modern equipment always makes the unit hit much harder, but also increases use of ammunition & artillery shells. And that poo poo was expensive, in a way that's hard to grasp even in the era of $1T fighter jet programs. The cost of bringing up a major power army to the new standard might approach the yearly revenues of that state. Because you have other things you need to spend money on, it's not practical to do that all the time, so you are going to either skip generations, or only properly equip a small subset of your army, and really hope the big balloon doesn't go up just yet. Alternatively, if you do a crash program to re-equip all your armies, you are now in the situation where you start thinking that if a war is to come, maybe it's better to happen now, and not after someone invents something new again... The primary source of equipment for minor powers and "uncivs" is the leftovers of the major powers. This is why it would be better to have different equipment types instead of just using more small arms/artillery as time progresses. Diplomacy was also very important -- much of the reason many smaller countries were in German orbit in the late 19th century was that if you made nice with the Kaiser, he'd sell you Mausers, while the British really preferred to keep the good stuff for themselves unless you were willing to really tie yourself to them, and in contrast the French rifles available at the time were just bad. Later on, revolts also become dramatically more dangerous if there is a major power pushing them military equipment. Many of those goods would also not be a replacement for all that comes before -- a WW1 infantry division is going to have rifles and heavy machine guns and field guns, and after some battlefield innovation a whole lot of light machine guns and heavier artillery is going to be attached. So you want to make them all at the same time. Speaking of... 4. When it comes to speaking of what kind of forces WW1 was fought with and how they evolved in the duration, all the history books talk about machine guns per regiment or heavy batteries per corps. So for designing your units, do that instead of the HoI style "attach these brigades or companies or whatever". A division template per unit type, with sliders or boxes with numbers for every equipment type that unlocks when you first get some, that you can change to add more firepower per man. If you edit the template of an unit type you already have, then all the existing units will release/take in reinforcements from your pool until they meet it, or else fight at reduced strenght. And you don't even need to add any "combat experience" style mechanic to limit them. You are almost certainly going to start the war with most your units consisting mostly of infantry armed with rifles because a conscript is free until you actually call them to arms and the rifles are so much cheaper than the alternatives, so unless you spend all state revenues on the army, that's your sanest choice. Then in a hellwar it's going to convert into late ww1 TOE simply because manpower gets scarcer and you have converted half of your domestic economy to make shells and machineguns to feed the grinder, so something with much more firepower makes sense instead. When there is not enough modern equipment to fully kit up a division, they are just given whatever is in the pool instead. Resulting in things like freshly called up Irish divisions training with muzzle loaders until there is enough SMLE to equip them, or large Chinese armies that are even in the late 19th century largely armed with smoothbores or even pikes. 5. HoI style reservist mobilization. Your military service laws create a pool of manpower, to make use of the reservists you make divisions tagged as reserve that you get to preposition on map and then how good you are at mobilization just means how quickly they get reinforced to full strength when war start. This is dramatically better than "a gazillion basic infantry just pop out of nothing, have fun". So I get how that would be too much for a non-wargame, but my dream is that it's at least possible to mod in. Because of the superb modding abilities of Imperator, I have high hopes...
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 10:26
|
|
|
It’s a hard nut to crack for sure, a universally functioning warfare system for the period. I was surprised to see them letting the game run all the way to 1936. That sort of time frame will lead to players expecting a HOI4 esque army system towards the end of the game. How to mesh that with a significantly different way to wage warfare in 1836, not to mention just 1870, I honestly don’t know. The fact that they pointedly won’t show warfare yet probably means that they too struggle with finding a good solution.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 10:54
|
|
|
I admit, I never even tried Vicky 1 or 2 because of the time period. I'm simply turned off by "modern" weapons. Sword and lances and bow (and optionally magic)? Sign me up. Ion cannons, plasma rifles, antimatter bombs? They're my jam! Ballistic rifles, artillery, tanks, airplanes? I don't care for that at all. And I did my mandatory 9 months conscription service in Germany (before we abolished conscription), and I didn't really hate it, but something about that period in military history (up to the present) just generally doesn't interest me. It's a problem I have with the Total War games as well, I've never enjoyed the combat in Empire or Fall of the Samurai. I played Empire: Total War basically purely for it's mapgame, because I autoresolved every single fight, which is probably not the proper way to play a Total War game, but I still got some enjoyment out of it. Now I do like the politics of the Vicky period, but as I said, I simply don't enjoy the warfare aspect of that time. Reading your post filled me with a bit of dread, I seriously considered dipping my toes into a Victoria game for the first time with Vicky 3, especially with the announcement about warfare being... deemphasized? I don't have to know about muzzleloaded vs needle firing rifles, do I? Make detailed tactical plans how to counter an enemy's heavy gun howitzers? I really appreciate Crusader King's warfare system for making army composition in a way less important. If it's important to really understand 19th century warfare, then Vicky 3 might not be for me 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 11:19
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:So much of HoI4 could be lifted as is and make wars better. I'm not actually into HoI at all, but the whole logistics side of things does actually feel meaningful to the period. I know the Danish leadership decided against more advanced firearms leading up to 1864 because it felt the army would chew through its ammunition too fast, which is sort of a parallel issue to the weapons themselves being expensive to replace. Obviously important to hit the right balance here, but if as you suggest they tie it into diplomacy, with the sale of older models (or even better, state of the art models) being a way to recoup some of the investment monetarily and/or diplomatically, then the focus could be shifted pretty convincingly away from like a HoI style war focus. If not part of the base game, "War Is a Racket" could be a decent DLC, and making it obvious that it was the economic side of war that was the focus would temper expectations of a full-on HoI style war DLC. Torrannor posted:I admit, I never even tried Vicky 1 or 2 because of the time period. I'm simply turned off by "modern" weapons. Sword and lances and bow (and optionally magic)? Sign me up. Ion cannons, plasma rifles, antimatter bombs? They're my jam! A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 11:28 on May 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 11:22
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:It’s a hard nut to crack for sure, a universally functioning warfare system for the period. I was surprised to see them letting the game run all the way to 1936. That sort of time frame will lead to players expecting a HOI4 esque army system towards the end of the game. How to mesh that with a significantly different way to wage warfare in 1836, not to mention just 1870, I honestly don’t know. The fact that they pointedly won’t show warfare yet probably means that they too struggle with finding a good solution.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 11:26
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The good solution is rolling back the timeline. 1815-1920! I kind of expected Vicky 3 to be 1821-1920ish so yeah maybe? I’m glad to have a hundred years to play with and I look forward to seeing what they come up with, regardless! But I am a major WWI nerd so I kind of hope a Great War scenario is handled to a point. It’s hard to say when an event becomes inevitable but WWI was a long time coming. BigglesSWE fucked around with this message at 11:39 on May 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 11:37
|
|
|
It's really weird to me that they kept the 1936 end date but then I also think that EU4 shouldn't even think about modeling the US War of Independence or Napoleon. Historical games are usually better when the scope is limited.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 12:42
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:It's really weird to me that they kept the 1936 end date but then I also think that EU4 shouldn't even think about modeling the US War of Independence or Napoleon. Historical games are usually better when the scope is limited. Yes! End Europa Universalis in 1763! Victoria 1764-1901. Hearts of Iron 1902-1962.(Obviously it will need a variety of start dates)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 12:53
|
|
|
No, separate Age of Enlightenment game, 1764-1836 After of course Migration Era and Crusader Cao Caos
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
Will Victoria 3 model regular economic crises?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 13:23
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I know the Danish leadership decided against more advanced firearms leading up to 1864 because it felt the army would chew through its ammunition too fast, which is sort of a parallel issue to the weapons themselves being expensive to replace.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
I have a modest proposal for a feature called "Hitler Designer". Please pm me for more information, thanks and please implement
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 14:49
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:US board of ordinance or whatever it was called was controlled by a guy who thought the same. IIRC Lincoln wanted to introduce as many repeaters as possible but that guy had a lot of political backing. The main problem logistically with the new repeaters of the time was that they required specialized cartridges and the quantities needed just weren't available early on. The US did adopt the Spencer officially during the war though and eventually cartridge production came up enough that it wasn't such a big problem. The army was very interested in breechloaders and had quite a few of them, but not in the numbers to do much more than equip cavalry. "We'll use up all the ammo" was definitely a statement but it's also "all our stores of powder and paper cartridges would not be useful" whereas pretty much every repeating rifle needed a brass-cartridged bullet.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I admit, I never even tried Vicky 1 or 2 because of the time period. I'm simply turned off by "modern" weapons. Sword and lances and bow (and optionally magic)? Sign me up. Ion cannons, plasma rifles, antimatter bombs? They're my jam! My take on your post is that you'd love conscription during the Thirty Years War  (i'm kidding, I was seriously averse to sci-fi warfare for a long time too. Only a few exceptions like Age of Wonders Planetfall or Xcom passed my lenses).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:rather than having to custom make tens of thousands of flags. its like you want this game to fail
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1396856316631650306?s=19
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/martin_anward/status/1396856289234456581?s=21 Regarding political parties, put me down as a vote against them. I found it very limiting in V2 how certain policies could only be enacted with certain parties (eg economy type) and like the idea of tying politics more directly to the electorate’s wishes.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 16:56
|
|
