Paradox Games

1104 readers

1 users here now

A general community for everything by Paradox Interactive.

Rules:

1. Don't be an asshole.

2. Keep posts on-topic. ie. Posts have to be either about the company itself or games made/ published by Paradox.

3. No NSFW content.

4. No spamming.

5. No advertising.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

weeahnn

[email protected]

Victoria 3 warfare (self.paradoxgames)

submitted 4 months ago by FelixCress to c/paradoxgames

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Quick question to anyone playing Victoria 3 - is the warfare still broken or did Paradox finally come to their senses and reworked it to include proper units?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, so I'm not going to say you're right or wrong, and if this is the deal-breaker for you then no skin off my nose.

With all that said, I heavily disagree with you. The game on launch was an unplayable mess, yes, but that wasn't to do with the overall concept of the combat system.

Combat in V3 should be decided by technology level, logistics, the general's skill and numbers. The combat system does this. Manually moving around units to exploit the AI does not help the verisimilitude of the simulation. Conversely, if you aren't exploiting the AI, then it's just busywork that can be automated... which they did. This is not a game where player skill expression in terms of unit placement makes sense.

[–] FelixCress -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Manually moving around units to exploit the AI does not help the verisimilitude of the simulation. Conversely, if you aren't exploiting the AI, then it's just busywork that can be automated...

Complete rubbish. History is full of examples of small forces outsmarting and outmaneuvering larger forces. The same applies here.

I don't think you understand what Victoria is or at least was before V3 mess came out. It is NOT an economy simulator. It is a geopolitical simulator and war is inherent part of it - or was in Vic1&2.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

History is full of examples of small forces outsmarting and outmaneuvering larger forces.

Yes, but not every war forever for whichever nation the player is piloting. Once you've "solved" combat in a game like this, then suddenly every general for the rest of history for every nation you ever play is a super-genius, which feels pretty ridiculous and gamey.

It is a geopolitical simulator

Yes. Completely agree. Micro-managing individual battalions doesn't fit very cleanly into a game about geopolitics. War is a part of it, but not at that granular a level. To take this into hyperbolic extremes to illustrate a point, just because a game includes warfare doesn't mean it has to have a first person shooter segment.

[–] FelixCress -4 points 4 months ago

Yes, but not every war forever for whichever nation the player is piloting.

And you don't have to (and often you are unable to), but least you have an opportunity to do so. A choice.

Micro-managing individual battalions doesn't fit very cleanly into a game about geopolitics.

Battalions? Not necessarily. Divisions (like in V1) or brigades (V2) very much so. If you want to make a ridiculous strawman argument at least try to stay accurate.