this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
7 points (73.3% liked)
Paradox Games
1102 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
And you don't have to (and often you are unable to), but least you have an opportunity to do so. A choice.
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.