Ok paradox, im gonna say it: RELEASE THE GAME THIS WEEKEND PLZ, IT HAS BEEN SO MANY YEARS WAITING FOR THIS, THIS GAME LOOKS SO GOOD Edit: Yes, the caps lock means i was screaming, im screaming for this game, are you happy paradox?
Even though I don’t like victoria3’s warfare,I do genuinely love the other systems so I’m gonna love to see if the warfare changes, and if it does I’ll buy it, I love you paradox no hate just a criticism.
no doubt they will do that, if not at lunch maybe later, the game as animations with forts shootings t each other i think? but seeing soldiers, trenches etc.. would be great, they might make a dlc for that i guess. If not then maybe Mods will do it.
Unfortunate that the 'blockade' navy order was not put into the game, I think there was dev diary talking about them trying to implement it before the release some time ago.
My understanding is a large enough navy set to “attack convoys” would prevent trade from happening providing the function of a blockade. Not sure what diplomatically is available to let other countries know “if you trade with them I’ll be extra angry.”
I think it'd be distracting seeing a bunch of horses riding around and muskets firing. I don't need to see all that if I'm the king. Just give me reports and let me know when you mash the guys or if we have to surrender and cede a province or something.
@@snowbear163 I really want to see those gorgeous 19th century military uniforms though. Imagine prussian blue, british red and austrian white displayed with Vicky 3s beautiful graphics.
I like complexity in strategy games. I like complex economics. I like complexity in culture, religions, poltics ect. The war system in this game seems to be gutted and not at all complex. I get the idea of trimming the fat and streamlining things. But this seems to simplistic.
“It’s a better idea to pull conscripts from your least productive states” She said while pulling conscripts from the most valuable and productive region of Prussia
@@Flash4ML I think The Rhineland and Westphalia was rich regions even in 1836. I read somewhere that regions in Pomeranian and Berlin suffered massive casualties in the 30 years war, and stayed poor for a long time. They would be comparable if not richer than Konigsberg and Silesia.
@@tsehoyin2 rhineland became rich probably near the brothers war. Austria refused rhineland for Venice area in the vienna system. So you can guess how under develıped it was with its resources
Agreed. I've stayed away from a lot of Vicy 3 stuff to avoid the hype train, but decided to watch this video before buying and I've lost most of my motivation to buy it. What's the point a grand strategy war game if the war gaming part of it is inferior to its 12 year old predecessor.
@@renatlottiepilled What would you call a game focused around waring with anyone who standing in your way to build a Imperialist Colonial Empire then? I know what I would call it. A Grand Strategy War game.
I can see already there will definitely be a DLC to allow you to set objectives for your armies and control your front lines and set up naval blockades. Its pretty much inevitable. Shame that so much control was removed.
This combat system seems like a big let down, I'm all for only having strategic control, but this looks like no control. Just "attack or defend", and watch the numbers go up or down.
Personally, I think using HOI4's battleplan system, wit some tweaks, and without being able to control individual units manually would have been amazing.
@@andrewdowell2663 but if you do that then it will be very cumbersome to run your economy and nation. It works in HOI4 because you're only focusing on the military. But when you have to focus on everything it will be too much. Sounds like people want to play a HOI4 mod set in the 1800s more than anything. If that's the case, there are options available last I checked.
@@snowbear163 but you can’t say that this is an particularly interesting way to use the military it’s bare-bones. Attack, standby and defence. I don’t think you can blame people for wanting more for content when you’re paying full price
Honestly I was one of the ones who wanted a more automated system of warfare in V1 and V2 but this is overly simplistic for me. The old EU/V2 war system with a HOI4 command AI option where you can automate with battleplans or not while being able to try and do certain areas manually if you want would be preferable. My preferred approach would have been simply being able to set your troops under AI command and give them an area to operate similar to HOI3 actually. This reminds me of a basic mobile game where you just click on another nation declare war and send a load of troops against it. The old system could be micro heavy but give us AI military leadership if we want like EU Rome or HOI4 and others can do province by province.
That's what this was remining me of. You hit the nail on the head with "reminds me of a basic mobile game". It's really disappointing and I'm not sure if I even want to buy the game anymore.
unlike eu4 and hoi4 this game focuses much on economics and trade rather than warfare and colonization. in hoi4, for example, the only form of economy is civilian factories, infrastructure and a oversimplified trade mechanic which is all required for your war machine.
Ah yes, everyone loved having to boot up war analyzer and load up your save file. Having this feature built into the game by default is surely a massive downgrade.
I guess Russia Austria and other nations can forcefully conscript their minorities. I like that, it’s quite accurate to many nations where some regions faced higher casualties per capita than others
@@skulli7378 Plenty countries still do, enforced conscription isn't privy to totalitarian dictatorships. Not to defend Russia of course, I'm sure their enforcement is much more rigorous then say, Switzerland
Paradox be like: What if we get the hoi4 fleet mechanics, the worst warfare system, we ever produced, and everyone hates, and put it into victoria 3 for both naval and ground warfare! Thats a great idea son, here have your raise!
Lmao, for how much people shit on Vic 2, I think I'll just stick to that. Vic 2 was a mess, but at least it was a mess because it was massive undertaking to incorporate a lot of mechanics under one game. Its a master of none, but its all right. Paradox heard that people got tired of micromanaging armies on Vic 2 so apparently they just decided to remove army control, kind of lazy move. This just feels like another avenue for paradox to make a DLC for. Remember when Napoleon made a front with Austria, Prussia, the german states and Italy? Its not like he meaneuvered his way through the land and through terrain and won through strategic planning, Nah, Napoleon just shoved troops on the "front"...
How does Prussia with 198 battalions have almost 170k casualties in a war against Denmark with 18 battalions who only has 15k casualties. Holy fucking shit lmao
Could be from an old build. Could be that Prussia is hurling skirmish conscripts at a professional army with trench soldiers supported by artillery across a narrow front.
Who doesn't love RNG? I know I do, I don't even get past the nation selection anymore, I just pick a nation and roll a d20 to see if I win that playthrough. I "played" some eu4 as Byzantium last night and completed a world conquest since I rolled a 20. Its much more fun letting RNG decide the outcome rather then player skill and knowledge.
@@SpudgunOfficial unfortunately I learned how awesome RNG was from this new "warfare" mechanic so I rolled a d20 to see if I was gonna buy the game but I rolled a 1.
The 'your flag is over every enemy territory you have occupied, individually' looks awful and I hope it's changed. Making one big flag (or the traditional paradox striped lines) would be way better imo.
Absolutely the worst part of Victoria 3 and what is the deal-breaker to me. They've gutted the in-depth system that rewards skill in Victoria 2, and it will probably be sold back to us in a couple of years via DLC. What an utter disappointment.
Paradox's dlc thing is shit but I personally just wanna play a different kind of game. I have never been a fan of the micro wars; you are and there are already a lot of games that accommodate for you so.
@@Phantomz. You do realize that in a game like Victoria 2 you can just play a country and not go to war, building tall instead? That would still be an option in Victoria 3, but I prefer a _complete_ gameplay experience.
@@Zorro9129 Yeah and then you'd never get to have wars? This is infinitely better than the cancer that Vic 2 combat was. That was the deal breaker for me in that game.
@@cassu6 If you want to wage wars pressing three buttons, there are plenty of mobile games filling that niche. Grand-strategy is expressly the opposite of that.
To be fair, I think it's been designed this way so after a lot of playtesting by ourselves after release they can sell us a DLC addressing all of this.
Also, don't get me wrong. It's refreshing to see a new warfare system and I think it has a lot of potential. However, PDX really needs to address the discontent among its core playerbase. Let's face it, GSG is still a niche genre, and most people who buy PDX games do it because of the warfare mechanics. I'm personally eager to see all the Economy and Politics mechanics in motion, but I would seriously recommend PDX to address the elephant in the room. It's as simple as, for example, adding the option of being able to choose which provinces or states your generals will prioritize when advancing. And tbh, considering how divided the PDX community is around this, I think it should be a free feature on a following patch after release. If they want they can sell more warfare control options later on as a DLC, but I think this is essential in order to avoid the game flopping like Imperator.
@@argon65 I think it is great that they made a concious yet controversial artistic decision to allow for a different focus in this series. GSG might be a niche genre. But Paradox is its own biggest enemy in that niche if they continue to make too similar games. I would have not preordered V3 if it would have been another "raise your armies to conquer everything"-title. I already own 4 of those from Paradox.
@@argon65 i think they need to stick to their guns and flesh out the systems this is designed for. The "I want war" crowd is loud but I don't think it's that large. There is already HOI4 and Stellaris for people who just want a war simulator. I'm excited we get an economic simulator where we do deals, and diplomacy, and run a nation. I like the approach to war as in it's a means to an end, you tell your generals the war aims and then they make it all happen operationally. Not my job to tell units where to move or what tactics to use.
@@Chiungalla79 this. Too many people want "HOI4 but in the 1800s." If that's the case they can download a mod. Lots of people get disappointed with CK3 because they play it like a paint-the-map simulator which it's not. What people are really wanting is war simulators through various times in history. And the answer to that is just more HOI4 mods. I'm here for the diplomacy, the deals, the economics, the trade. War is a means to an end. I don't need to tell my horses where to go. That's what I pay the military for is to figure all that out for me.
Giving us such terrible machanics fits pdx sale strategy: release unfinished product and then make vast amount of dlcs changing entire gameplay, empty your wallet and laugh. But pdx fanboys will still be jumping on hypetrain
@@rzu1474 At home you will most likely have physicians and your healthcare system + you know where to forage and take refuge. Attrition isn't just dying of illness, but everything besides actual combat casulties. So yes, you should take less attrition in your homeland.
Because being at home would still be heavy in attrition. Disease still spreads even if you are at home. It prolly should be more deep and nuanced in the future, but it makes sense for now. That game isn't quiet that circumstantial yet. Like a french army fighting in Paris will strong supply lines? Probably not a lot of attrition. But the French army sitting in the trenches within their border? HORRIBLE attrition even if they are at home. It all depends and the game isn't quite that nuanced yet.
@@123mrmaynard123 I think I remember hearing that one of the last things they are working on fixing before release was the fact that casualties are currently way too high.
Whats my question: How does a small country ever win against a big one? Like with the Risorgimento in Italy vs Austria or Balkan Alliance vs the Ottomans? As long as you have better tech and economy, there is now way you lose with this system. Even if we say that big countries have to win vs small ones, how do you encourage players to choose countries like Brunei or Peru? Its already pretty hard to equalize in technology but also regarding economy and population, its basically impossible to effectively win a war against a much stronger foe. Don't get me wrong, it makes sense, but at the same time, your decisions for war should make an impact to a point where you as a player win the war by your decisions that would otherwise have been lost. This makes it exciting and makes outcomes of a war not so easy to determine.
Terrain modifiers mainly just like in most pdx games. With this system I guess you can put a general as idle on a front and let the enemy advance and take attrition until they reach a very good and defencible terrain for you. Then you put that general on defence and let the enemy grind away their troops if they want. That is in pure warfare mechanics without any diplomacy involved i.e. having a strong ally, receiving support and all other stuff from stronger nations etc. This is kinda equivalent to real wars where the main cause of a stronger nation losing to a much weaker nations is because of strong defencible terrain and attrition.
@@puernatura8998 Absolutely not, even in more recent wars like Vietnam, tech and economy migh be deemed almost useless against an enemy that knows how to use their limited resources in their favor.
This is my concern about the seeming lack of opportunities for micromanaging. It’s nice being able to use maneuver and position to pocket or cut off forces and whittle down a numerically larger one
I really hope for a bit more control in warfare, like priority points to advance towards, manualle setting up frontlines so you can decide what to attack and what not
100% agree. I’m okay with the old Vicky 2 or EU4 system of micromanaging stacks but I’m also okay with a fleshed out front lines system like HOI4. I don’t understand why they have gone this route except that they have professed that war is not meant to be a rewarding gameplay mechanic in Vicky 3 and it’s undesirable at best as a last resort to reach diplomatic play goals. So I’m thinking that the devs wanted us to hate the system or at least not enjoy it because we aren’t supposed to be using warfare as a rewarding game mechanic. Hopefully they will roll out some big war update/DLC in the near future.
@@crowneproductions9908 The thing is that you're approaching Vicky's warfare from your experience with other PDX titles. But that's not how the devs see it. Victoria is not about war like HoI4 or painting maps like EU4, it's all about politics and economics in a rapidly changing modern era. Vicky II felt weird; warfare was bland, superficial, and more often than not annoying. You had to micromanage your army stacks like in EU, but whereas that's fine for EU it really didn't make sense that armies were these largely static entities that were in no way as complex as building industries, managing your colonies, changing your government, etc. Perhaps it could have worked with the deeper mechanics of HoI4, but then Victoria would be all about war which would be even worse. After all, as Clausewitz said, war is diplomacy by other means - and that's exactly what Vicky 3's warfare mechanics seem to do. I mean, we still have to manage all the build-up towards and logistics behind war - it's not like war is now this abstract affair like it is in EU4.
I'm fine with some automated warfare where you're instructing AI strategy, but is it only limited to advancing/defending war fronts? You can't tell your generals to maneuver troops such that they focus on breaking through certain front sections and beelining for key provinces? Like high risk high reward power plays early on when Napoleon-inspired war tactics still worked effectively. Because if not, the game wont be that accurate because war of attrition fronts don't really represent much of the Victorian period's warfare until WWI
Yeah this feels really dumbed down to a level where you don't have any influence in making power plays, it's just click a button and hope your stats are good enough to push.
that's the boat I'm in, personally, I think using HOI4's battleplan system, wit some tweaks, and without being able to control individual units manually would have been amazing.
The head of state shouldn't be involved at the operational level in the military. The king shouldn't be telling generals how to maneuver and how to break fronts. The military decides that. In WW1 the Czar kept trying to tell the military what to do and things didn't go very well. If this is a type of depiction of reality then you tell the military what your goals are they come up with the plans to make that happen.
@@snowbear163 i mean the head of state isnt also operationally involved in building every factory in every state, it’s delegated to state officials and economists in real life. but GSGs are games that operate like board games, you control aspects of certain game features regardless of how much of a simulation they are in near omnipotent-level. If we apply that logic then you also shouldnt be seeing anything globally from a bird’s eye view because the head of state didnt have that ability irl
also it’s merely from an instructional level. like for example, during the ACW Licoln laid out clear instructions for his generals to capture Richmond quickly, but his timid and incompetent generals didnt do that. Atleast give the player the more options to instruct the AI on what it should, not just almost a binary go attack or defend system it has now
Hm, still feels a bit bare to be honest. I like the new ideas but they just don't seem that developed yet. Also, I would like to be able to set some degree of priorities regarding provinces, You might want to attack a ery specific area which is where the enemy has his arms industry for instance. Also, I hope the war support mechanic isn't like Stellaris, where you can be at war ahd have litterally nothing happening to your pops or country and for some reason still have war exhaustion (or, in this case, war support) decrease.
"Also, I hope the war support mechanic isn't like Stellaris, where you can be at war ahd have litterally nothing happening to your pops or country and for some reason still have war exhaustion (or, in this case, war support) decrease." you predicted it my guy
Damn, I loved seeing the various army soldiers in uniforms on the map. It made the game feel more alive. Hopefully one day they get brought in by a dlc or mod.
I want the game to have some control over the military. Not asking for micro but some control and visualization of my Army and Navy, air force later. Currently I see only a few options as mentioned in the video. Rulers in this era had way more control over their military matters. Think of Tsars Kaisers Emperors and chancellors that ruled in this century.
mm.... OK. No changes to combat since the leaks. That's concerning. I mean, surely there will be balance changes. But...like... at the best of times, Paradox combat can be summed up as "throwing larger numbers into a random number generator than your opponents to win." And this just goes and takes it to the extreme where there's not even the option of where you engage or what terrain, or even the ability to pick off small stacks of out-of-positions ships/soldiers.
Here how Paradox should add: a button. If People want to see little men fighting, shooting at each other’s turn on. If you want immersion turn off. Though with a giant railroad that have train as big as cities I find it hard to know where is the immersion people kept talking about. Having unit and the ability to micro it (at the very least similar to front command in hoi4) is essential. War has always been a part of civilization and paradox game, from crusader kings to Europa universalis, from imperator Rome to Stellaris. I don’t know why the era which stand only second to Hoi4 in term of tenacity in warfare can have the military system reduce to not even showing soldier and micro them a little. For the thousand time I understand that this is a game focus on politic and pop micromanaging but same thing for Europa universalis which suppose to focus on trade and exploration. War can’t be reduce even in this game.
Bro this is horrible... No armies on the map, not even visual representations of battles along the front. Literally just a mobile cookie clicker with numbers ticking down. What is this trash? Been a huge fan of EVERY Paradox game since CK2.
Sooo glad about "patrol coast" and "naval invasion" settings for naval warfare. When first announced this was very unclear how easy it would be to interact naval combat with army landings, as opposed to strictly economic benefits.
@@Flash4ML cope. Pdx games always have war to a small degree. Stellaris is more complex than this. Is stellaris a war game? No. Its just one of 10 different components that make it fun. You know. The reason we play games.
@@monarchtherapsidsinostran9125 Lol how is that cope? I agree that Paradox games always have some form of war, is this game any different? The majority of people in the comment section are acting like warfare should be one of the main focuses of the game, which it isn't and shouldn't be.
I'm hyped for the economy and the pop mechanics, but the warfare feels really lacking. I hope the devs (and managament) decide to work on the warfare system, I'm still going to buy the game but it feels like I'm giving paradox a last chance, the last few DLC's (Royal Court, By Blood alone, Iberian struggle) have been pretty dissapointing and I'm hoping Vic 3 isn't getting the same treatment, it's a good base to build on, but it still needs quite some work that isn't going to be fixed by a DLC that gives you a fancy throne room for €30.
While I like the new front system and not having to micro, I would still want more involvement in the war process. For example, recruiting generals gives them random traits. Why not build a military academy which will influence which traits I want for generals by a certain percent? Hopefully the war element receives more updates as while its not entirely bad, it could use some improvements.
I think bringing back the war plans from Vic 2 and allowing you to customize the equipment of your army would be a good way to allow for player interaction in wars. Also allowing us to set the general tactics of our Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery would be good, like massed artillery, skirmishing cav and loose order infantry. That way while you don’t have a hand in what your armies do on the front you do set the general school of thought for your generals and armies.
@@romanboi3115 they literally said that taking out the old war system and implementing this system was perhaps the hardest and most time consuming aspect of development so I have to believe that the system we’re getting is not fully developed.
@@iterationfackshet1990 When replacing something, you need to first figure out what you are gonna replace it with. So that is where 75% of the time and energy went into, developing a replacement idea. Now they better add onto it to give me a little more control on what the army does. Giving some objectives would be nice, but this system will work for now.
The thing that worries me here is the player's lack of agency/preparation for an upcoming war. For example, there is no way to build fortifications. Not to mention, it seems both defender and the attacker are suffering some attrition. That seems a bit off. Is there maybe a way to pick a strategy or something. (Like scorch Earth tactics for a defender, or guerilla warfare ??)
I am not against attrition. But if you have good supplies and logistics (your infrastructure etc) . You should likely not get the same attrition as if you were fighting in swamps. Also, I see no indication that terrain or season affecting attrition.
Dont kid yourself the only reason they changed this system is not to make the game better or becaus they thought it would be the best for the game, it's because they needed a system that would be easy and very compatible with consoles.
I like the look of how warfare has been done. As in it's not micro heavy and largely takes care of itself. Too much micro and unit control on this scale would bog the game down into just another war game.
This is the exact problem with vicky2, especially in multiplayer where games are decided often purely because of micro mistakes. Its fine for Hoi4 and CK3(hoi4 is designed for it, and ck3 never has so many units that it becomes obnoxious to micro) but I hope vicky3's success leads them to do similar things when EU5 eventually rolls out. More dank simulation stuff less abusing AI into making pathing mistakes + no late game wars where you need to individually micro hundreds of thousands potentially millions of troops.
@@daroaminggnome They could have gone for a hybrid system, but what this new "no micro" system does is completely remove skill. In multiplayer you could defeat a larger enemy by using your troops wisely.
@@Zorro9129 Says a man that has never played the game lmao. How can you say there is no skill involved when you've never beaten a single opponent be they AI or player?
my 300 russian units vs 500 qing unit face each other on the frontline the actual battle 4 russian vs 10 qing represent by 2 artilerries shooting at each other well done paradox
Well paradox, I think it is fair to say that even though we think this was a good try to make something different from wars...it is obviously not a good system. I agree with the fact that yeah it's a game that gives more reward in being a good country builder and I agree with that and I have to admit that I am not sure how can you change that, but right now I think it is fair to say that war system is really bad and that there is a general consensus about this being bad.
I hope they might change this system. Like you can control where you army will attack in certein areas. Thats my only complaint, Otherwise this gma looks awesome and already pre ordered it
victoria is not a war game. It's focused on economics, include the economics of war. More depth to the warfare system would come in the way of more deep supply lines or ways to use your army to disrupt their economy, not micro control of units
@@magica3526 making the game more complex in areas other than war does not require you to dumb down and make war boring. This is not a good argument. The economy looks amazing, but war doesn't look very engaging. Making the economy engaging shouldn't come at the cost of making war boring. Why can you not have both? Edit: and he's asking for more options, not micro control. For example, spearhead lines from HoI4 would be cool, so you can recreate things like sherman's March to the sea
@@senseishu937 at least being able to plan your front like in Vic 2 would be good, adding war plans back could be a good way to add more player control while not having a ton of micro. Also allowing us to see our standing professional armies during peace would be good as well.
I'm not a fan of how the ground war works. The frontline mechanic would actually do great in in HoI4 or if Vic3 was just a WW1 game, but WW1 is very late game and much of the Victorian Era WAS chasing around each others armies. It seems ill thought out. A good idea, but for the wrong game.
Who agrees to put in the peace treaties not the conquest of the whole region but to contemplate the conquest of a part or to divide the region and create a satellite state?
And the combat system turned out to be utter trash, like so many warned and so many didn't heed. Bravo Paradox, you have made your absolute worst warfare system, if it can even be called such.
I expected this tutorial nontheless explain how SPECIFICALLY one army can be better than another. I literally sent a general with like 20 batallions to advance on a frontline against ENEMY GENERAL WHO HAD 10 BATALLIONS AND MY SIDE LOST! It's hilarious because buffs were on my side we had everything fine and we lost like that! WHAT IS THIS!?
Could be. I prefer it to be simplistic and a good foundation for future development then a poor revamp of what we already know though, I think even if it's lackluster on release, it's definitely a step in the right direction
War is disappointing in Victoria 3, and because of that fact diplomatic plays are bad I mean knowing who’s gonna win because of money, tech and numbers isn’t a war system that inspires people to be proud when they win a war and completely disabled the use of creative thinking to use in conflicts but instead of crying and giving no advise I’ll try and give ideas that’ll make warfare more fun first I’m not asking for the reintroduction of the stack combat that was so cancerous in Victoria 2, what I’m asking for is theses changes, first being able to tell your generals where to go is a simple but very nice edition to add second would be a more complex supply system so theres three buttons on the left and right, on the right there is a gradual increase in supply consumption but also a increase in attack and defence say 30% extra attack but 100% extra supply consumption or something and on the left side you use less supply but you do less defence and attack say 40% less supply consumption 25% less defence and attack and it increases each stat each button you press further right or left, another good order would be so I can attack railways if I get near them so the supply train either doesn’t come or I steal there equipment then it takes a while to buy then send another train, another thing I’d add is encirclement if you encircle an enemy army they have a minus 30% morale modifier and don’t get supplied guns or food so they gradually start either surrendering or starving and if you attack the encircled army if they run out of morale they surrender the best thing about this is that a general that you’ve given a lot of supply to will be loaded with supply and if encircled could change the direction of the war because 20% of your war supplies have been taken out of the equation by being encircled. and finally everyone’s least favourite system for paradox games the navy for the navy you could have the same supply system for the army but it’ll cost more but add another system say Britain has 200 ships and Germany has 130 all are latest to date ships and same tech everything but Britain sends in a full 200 ship death stacks but Germany only sends 100 the battle rages on but now Germany sends in his 30 ships and because of that the uk ships have 5% less defence to all ships but do 30% less damage to the new ships and take 25% more damage and then when the uk has to resupply without fear of retaliation the 30 German ships follow the uk navy back to the coast and since the uk navy has little to no ammo they do minimal if not no damage while being chased while in return because of not being able to fire back that much or at all take a 10% more damage plus the other damage increases if the Germans decide to use more supplies and do 90% less damage if very low on ammo or no damage if they have no ammo. Thanks for hearing me rant I just wanted to add a way to fix the war system and not just complain thanks everyone.
@@snowbear163 I would be fine with the addition of small visible units on the map. I really want those beautiful 19th century military uniforms displayed in all their glory. Hopefully they will add something cosmetic later on.
@@helmuthvonmoltke5518 Im 100% sure that military is gonna get the attention it needs soon. If I could tell my army to secure certain regions first and had all the little men running around I would say the system is good to go. But I think they cut its dev time down to focus on politics and economics.
Release is super close so no changes will be made rn but hopefully in the future they add more control over a front such as giving your generals to capture a specific province etc
Haven't been keeping up with the game or it's development - will give it a go tomorrow but... What the hell happened here? Who asked for warfare to be this uninvolved? It looks pretty ugly too. I dunno... I really hope the economics is actually fun enough to make up for this.
i would actually like the micro and out smart the enemy like every other paradox game. instead we got dice rolls with no way to influcence them other than pressing "Attack, Defend, Standby". no micro = no skill expression. great direction for a game set in an era of multiple wars. hopefully DLC will fix this disaster of a war system to give us stuff to show skill expression with.
This is like a game of chess that has no pieces and the winner is determined by who has the highest IQ, or a game of Monopoly without money where the winner is determined by who has the nicest suit.
If war is just pressing some buttons now then at least add more buttons(plunder,raze city,enslave,build colony). Also ditch that horrible voice. Painful.
It works like the barracks. Each Naval Base building level gives one "flotilla" and the production methods determine what exact ships are in said flotilla and therefore their stats and upkeep cost. Flotilla are then assigned to Admirals who you then order to do things in naval zones, much like how battalions are assigned to Generals who are then assigned to fronts
You talk to fast, and no change to read.......very poor, presentation. If you were presenting in my business, you would be fired. If thats the tutorial for a complicated game.....its simply not worth the cost.
Dear paradox, average modern CPU have at least 4 cores and 8 threads, and your game post 1910 is unplayable while my CPU is just there chilling You have to optimize your engine or allow it to use more resources. This is the complain of a unsatisfied client.
So i wont have to micro? hell yeah, i like HoI4's micro but in CK3 i really don't. EDIT: Nevermind, not what i expected, i watched some gameplay of it and it looks very underwhelming.
Kinda disappointed with this kind of warfare, too boring and very untactical. Miss the old style warfare like in Victoria 2 or other Paradox games. Why don't create a warfare mechanism like the HOI4 ones, that would be amazing.
I’m mixed about this system and I’ll have to see for myself as I’m not entirely sold on this. Everything else looks good but I feel like Vic 2’s military system would’ve been a better jumping off point rather than starting fresh.
I wouldn’t mind something like what they’ve got, if maybe you could at some great cost micro an army or two, like concentrating forces for a breakthrough rather than grinding it out across the whole front. They’ve got a bit of a challenge, having to cover both warfare as it was fought a bit after Napoleon, with huge set piece battles and armies on maneuver looking for a battlefield, all the way to WWI total war, battles stretching across entire borders. It would be neat if there was a transition somewhere through tech or something, that allowed the fronts to form and before that is more like Napoleonic armies. Like I’d hope we would have opportunities in late game to pocket an army and cut it off from supply, but I’m not sure this system allows that.
I disagree, the Vic2 system is terrible, this may not seem interesting or fun but it's laying the foundation for how they want war to work in Vic3, just slotting in Vic2's system bc they don't have a very good non-micro system yet would not be good game design
@@Flash4ML "Laying the foundation" I hate how people are trained to expect core game mechanics to be introduced only by DLC. Also the Victoria 2 system is janky but surprisingly good, multiplayer wars actually reflect history in how the game progresses. I doubt Victoria 3 will ever match that.
As someone mentioned on another post, Paradox games are usually bare bones at launch. This system has a lot of potential and can keep out the old Vic2 micro misery
@@Zorro9129 I share your annoyance that Paradox games are usually bare bones at release, but this is the reality, expecting anything else is just setting yourself up for disappointment. Trust me, I've been through this many times, and I've been disappointed time and time again bc I expected a finished product, but that's just not how Paradox games work. Also I disagree that the Vic2 system was good but that's a different matter
Who's ready for the release on Tuesday?
You know I am!
Ok paradox, im gonna say it: RELEASE THE GAME THIS WEEKEND PLZ, IT HAS BEEN SO MANY YEARS WAITING FOR THIS, THIS GAME LOOKS SO GOOD
Edit: Yes, the caps lock means i was screaming, im screaming for this game, are you happy paradox?
i am ! but why releasing it on tuesday??? It would be much nicer if it released on a saturday
Even though I don’t like victoria3’s warfare,I do genuinely love the other systems so I’m gonna love to see if the warfare changes, and if it does I’ll buy it, I love you paradox no hate just a criticism.
@@Amlaeuxrai i didnt know that, seems more logical to me now xD thanks for the info!
Personally I would still like to see some little men with muskets firing at each other as a battle animation, naval battles seemingly have it.
Agreed. I wanna see my boys go from muskets and top hats to bolt actions and brodie helmets
Same here
no doubt they will do that, if not at lunch maybe later, the game as animations with forts shootings t each other i think? but seeing soldiers, trenches etc.. would be great, they might make a dlc for that i guess. If not then maybe Mods will do it.
@@user-cd4ms6cf8l Its called a shako
@@DrShocktopus didnt the prussians use... uh... prusian blue?
Unfortunate that the 'blockade' navy order was not put into the game, I think there was dev diary talking about them trying to implement it before the release some time ago.
thats what i was wondering tooo...i feel like the current naval orders are not very well implemented
My understanding is a large enough navy set to “attack convoys” would prevent trade from happening providing the function of a blockade. Not sure what diplomatically is available to let other countries know “if you trade with them I’ll be extra angry.”
I'm guessing a blockade will be automatically implemented if you successfully "patrol coast" around all coastline the enemy nation has.
dont worry, you will be able to buy it in the nezt DLC
@@AndreLuis-gw5ox And it will be only 29,,99 € gosh im so exited!
They sure didn’t break the budget working on those warfare graphics
I think it'd be distracting seeing a bunch of horses riding around and muskets firing. I don't need to see all that if I'm the king. Just give me reports and let me know when you mash the guys or if we have to surrender and cede a province or something.
@@snowbear163 I really want to see those gorgeous 19th century military uniforms though. Imagine prussian blue, british red and austrian white displayed with Vicky 3s beautiful graphics.
@@helmuthvonmoltke5518 a good compromise for both requests: make it an option
@@snowbear163 yes yes, average paradox game player can only focus on 2 things
@@helmuthvonmoltke5518 Don´t forget russian green
You ready for when a $30 Expansion pack gives us an enhanced military system again.
I'm trying to figure out if they're making some kind of political statement or if they really think that people don't want a warfare system
Many people don't want hoi 4 level micromanaging
Insha'allah, we will have three hundred dollars worth of DLC!
@@JackTHall-ji1qb okay lol could've done something similar to vic 2 then...
@@JackTHall-ji1qb Not all of us are trash at Paradox games like you probably are , we like some micro management
I like complexity in strategy games.
I like complex economics.
I like complexity in culture, religions, poltics ect.
The war system in this game seems to be gutted and not at all complex.
I get the idea of trimming the fat and streamlining things. But this seems to simplistic.
“It’s a better idea to pull conscripts from your least productive states”
She said while pulling conscripts from the most valuable and productive region of Prussia
Not in 1836. The Rhineland became an industrial center during the course of this game
@@Flash4ML I think The Rhineland and Westphalia was rich regions even in 1836. I read somewhere that regions in Pomeranian and Berlin suffered massive casualties in the 30 years war, and stayed poor for a long time. They would be comparable if not richer than Konigsberg and Silesia.
Except, I would do the opposite, right? So every region would be harmed a little, but it´s not that hard to rebuild after the war?
@@tsehoyin2 rhineland became rich probably near the brothers war. Austria refused rhineland for Venice area in the vienna system. So you can guess how under develıped it was with its resources
Do as she says not as she does
Warfare was better in Victoria II imho, thats tne biggest issue i have with Victoria III
Agreed. I've stayed away from a lot of Vicy 3 stuff to avoid the hype train, but decided to watch this video before buying and I've lost most of my motivation to buy it. What's the point a grand strategy war game if the war gaming part of it is inferior to its 12 year old predecessor.
@@warmongerphoenix476 well, maybe it has to do with the fact that Vicky 3 is not, in fact, a grand strategy war game
@@renatlottiepilled IT IS a grand strategy game
@@renatlottiepilled What would you call a game focused around waring with anyone who standing in your way to build a Imperialist Colonial Empire then? I know what I would call it. A Grand Strategy War game.
@@renatlottiepilled it is.
Remember when Bismarck won a diplo event to get Alsace Loraine?
I can see already there will definitely be a DLC to allow you to set objectives for your armies and control your front lines and set up naval blockades. Its pretty much inevitable. Shame that so much control was removed.
shame more people don't feel this way.
Wont happen, Pdx has never released a dlc or update that changes warfare mechanics. They are already trying to dumb down Stellaris warfare so.
EU4 art of war?
@@Lucifer1247 lol what was Art of War then?
@@Lucifer1247 lmao how many pdx games do you play...
at this trajectory, hearts of iron 5 is literally just gonna be risk
?
paradox is a profit company, no way they will release hoi5 in the next 10 years as long as they can squeeze out all the money hoi4 can produce.
This combat system seems like a big let down, I'm all for only having strategic control, but this looks like no control. Just "attack or defend", and watch the numbers go up or down.
Personally, I think using HOI4's battleplan system, wit some tweaks, and without being able to control individual units manually would have been amazing.
@@andrewdowell2663 but if you do that then it will be very cumbersome to run your economy and nation. It works in HOI4 because you're only focusing on the military. But when you have to focus on everything it will be too much. Sounds like people want to play a HOI4 mod set in the 1800s more than anything. If that's the case, there are options available last I checked.
@@snowbear163 but you can’t say that this is an particularly interesting way to use the military it’s bare-bones. Attack, standby and defence. I don’t think you can blame people for wanting more for content when you’re paying full price
@@snowbear163 it might be cumbersome for a smooth-brain
@@andrewdowell2663 they will sell a 20$ must have dlc addresing the war system thats why its so bad now.
Honestly I was one of the ones who wanted a more automated system of warfare in V1 and V2 but this is overly simplistic for me. The old EU/V2 war system with a HOI4 command AI option where you can automate with battleplans or not while being able to try and do certain areas manually if you want would be preferable. My preferred approach would have been simply being able to set your troops under AI command and give them an area to operate similar to HOI3 actually. This reminds me of a basic mobile game where you just click on another nation declare war and send a load of troops against it. The old system could be micro heavy but give us AI military leadership if we want like EU Rome or HOI4 and others can do province by province.
That's what this was remining me of. You hit the nail on the head with "reminds me of a basic mobile game". It's really disappointing and I'm not sure if I even want to buy the game anymore.
unlike eu4 and hoi4 this game focuses much on economics and trade rather than warfare and colonization.
in hoi4, for example, the only form of economy is civilian factories, infrastructure and a oversimplified trade mechanic which is all required for your war machine.
I like that you can see how many soldiers have died, or are wounded in a war. Always was curious how many i would lose in old vic 2 wars
For Victoria 2 there's a war analyser program, it loads up a save and looks at deaths both in individual battles and the war overall
You will be able to see that
U could do that with war analyzer
Man your standards are low, unfortunately the prices won't be.
Ah yes, everyone loved having to boot up war analyzer and load up your save file. Having this feature built into the game by default is surely a massive downgrade.
I guess Russia Austria and other nations can forcefully conscript their minorities. I like that, it’s quite accurate to many nations where some regions faced higher casualties per capita than others
Pretty sure Russia still does that in modern times 💀
@@skulli7378 Plenty countries still do, enforced conscription isn't privy to totalitarian dictatorships. Not to defend Russia of course, I'm sure their enforcement is much more rigorous then say, Switzerland
@@Flash4ML the difference is that Russia is deliberately targeting minorities in a form of discrimination
Paradox be like:
What if we get the hoi4 fleet mechanics, the worst warfare system, we ever produced, and everyone hates, and put it into victoria 3 for both naval and ground warfare!
Thats a great idea son, here have your raise!
BASED
EU4 has the worst warfare system
@@noname_758 paradox will sell you a warfare dlc don’t worry
Hoi4 navy's not that bad
@@mecsi2573 Yes it is
Lmao, for how much people shit on Vic 2, I think I'll just stick to that. Vic 2 was a mess, but at least it was a mess because it was massive undertaking to incorporate a lot of mechanics under one game. Its a master of none, but its all right. Paradox heard that people got tired of micromanaging armies on Vic 2 so apparently they just decided to remove army control, kind of lazy move. This just feels like another avenue for paradox to make a DLC for.
Remember when Napoleon made a front with Austria, Prussia, the german states and Italy? Its not like he meaneuvered his way through the land and through terrain and won through strategic planning, Nah, Napoleon just shoved troops on the "front"...
How does Prussia with 198 battalions have almost 170k casualties in a war against Denmark with 18 battalions who only has 15k casualties.
Holy fucking shit lmao
Denmark stronk
Could be from an old build. Could be that Prussia is hurling skirmish conscripts at a professional army with trench soldiers supported by artillery across a narrow front.
Russia moment
@@ItsAstie Stereotypes moment
Console command shenanigans I bet.
Who doesn't love RNG? I know I do, I don't even get past the nation selection anymore, I just pick a nation and roll a d20 to see if I win that playthrough. I "played" some eu4 as Byzantium last night and completed a world conquest since I rolled a 20. Its much more fun letting RNG decide the outcome rather then player skill and knowledge.
Hope you roll some good combat modifiers in your Vic3 battles there buddy
@@SpudgunOfficial unfortunately I learned how awesome RNG was from this new "warfare" mechanic so I rolled a d20 to see if I was gonna buy the game but I rolled a 1.
The 'your flag is over every enemy territory you have occupied, individually' looks awful and I hope it's changed. Making one big flag (or the traditional paradox striped lines) would be way better imo.
Absolutely the worst part of Victoria 3 and what is the deal-breaker to me. They've gutted the in-depth system that rewards skill in Victoria 2, and it will probably be sold back to us in a couple of years via DLC. What an utter disappointment.
Paradox's dlc thing is shit but I personally just wanna play a different kind of game. I have never been a fan of the micro wars; you are and there are already a lot of games that accommodate for you so.
@@Phantomz. You do realize that in a game like Victoria 2 you can just play a country and not go to war, building tall instead? That would still be an option in Victoria 3, but I prefer a _complete_ gameplay experience.
@@Zorro9129 Yeah and then you'd never get to have wars? This is infinitely better than the cancer that Vic 2 combat was. That was the deal breaker for me in that game.
@@cassu6 If you want to wage wars pressing three buttons, there are plenty of mobile games filling that niche. Grand-strategy is expressly the opposite of that.
LOL, warfare totally sucked in Vic 2.
This section will probably be the weakest and most controversial part of the game, so I imagine it will be the first system under review post release.
To be fair, I think it's been designed this way so after a lot of playtesting by ourselves after release they can sell us a DLC addressing all of this.
Also, don't get me wrong. It's refreshing to see a new warfare system and I think it has a lot of potential. However, PDX really needs to address the discontent among its core playerbase. Let's face it, GSG is still a niche genre, and most people who buy PDX games do it because of the warfare mechanics.
I'm personally eager to see all the Economy and Politics mechanics in motion, but I would seriously recommend PDX to address the elephant in the room. It's as simple as, for example, adding the option of being able to choose which provinces or states your generals will prioritize when advancing. And tbh, considering how divided the PDX community is around this, I think it should be a free feature on a following patch after release. If they want they can sell more warfare control options later on as a DLC, but I think this is essential in order to avoid the game flopping like Imperator.
@@argon65
I think it is great that they made a concious yet controversial artistic decision to allow for a different focus in this series.
GSG might be a niche genre. But Paradox is its own biggest enemy in that niche if they continue to make too similar games.
I would have not preordered V3 if it would have been another "raise your armies to conquer everything"-title. I already own 4 of those from Paradox.
@@argon65 i think they need to stick to their guns and flesh out the systems this is designed for. The "I want war" crowd is loud but I don't think it's that large. There is already HOI4 and Stellaris for people who just want a war simulator. I'm excited we get an economic simulator where we do deals, and diplomacy, and run a nation. I like the approach to war as in it's a means to an end, you tell your generals the war aims and then they make it all happen operationally. Not my job to tell units where to move or what tactics to use.
@@Chiungalla79 this. Too many people want "HOI4 but in the 1800s." If that's the case they can download a mod. Lots of people get disappointed with CK3 because they play it like a paint-the-map simulator which it's not. What people are really wanting is war simulators through various times in history. And the answer to that is just more HOI4 mods. I'm here for the diplomacy, the deals, the economics, the trade. War is a means to an end. I don't need to tell my horses where to go. That's what I pay the military for is to figure all that out for me.
Giving us such terrible machanics fits pdx sale strategy: release unfinished product and then make vast amount of dlcs changing entire gameplay, empty your wallet and laugh. But pdx fanboys will still be jumping on hypetrain
Different game , same shit. Guess they know casuals will buy their games no matter what since they don't have half a brain.
why does attacking give the same attrition as defending? soldiers on home ground surely shouldn't take the same attrition
I assume being in foreign territory adds more attrition. Whats the 20% reprisents is the attrition added from not being on standby
Doesn't matter if you die of Typhus at home or abroad.
there migt a bonus for being in your own territory, however I assume you can also defend a front where you have occupied enemy territory.
@@rzu1474 At home you will most likely have physicians and your healthcare system + you know where to forage and take refuge. Attrition isn't just dying of illness, but everything besides actual combat casulties. So yes, you should take less attrition in your homeland.
Because being at home would still be heavy in attrition. Disease still spreads even if you are at home. It prolly should be more deep and nuanced in the future, but it makes sense for now. That game isn't quiet that circumstantial yet.
Like a french army fighting in Paris will strong supply lines? Probably not a lot of attrition. But the French army sitting in the trenches within their border? HORRIBLE attrition even if they are at home. It all depends and the game isn't quite that nuanced yet.
I Like how in the battle at 6:18 Prussia somehow lost 100K troops to Denmark
Ouch, I can see a problem there... more than 10x casualties of the actual wars
Just bad micro 😔
Soviet style invasion
@@123mrmaynard123 I think I remember hearing that one of the last things they are working on fixing before release was the fact that casualties are currently way too high.
@@razortheonethelight7303 i bet you $10 it will be like that in the release build
Whats my question: How does a small country ever win against a big one? Like with the Risorgimento in Italy vs Austria or Balkan Alliance vs the Ottomans? As long as you have better tech and economy, there is now way you lose with this system.
Even if we say that big countries have to win vs small ones, how do you encourage players to choose countries like Brunei or Peru? Its already pretty hard to equalize in technology but also regarding economy and population, its basically impossible to effectively win a war against a much stronger foe. Don't get me wrong, it makes sense, but at the same time, your decisions for war should make an impact to a point where you as a player win the war by your decisions that would otherwise have been lost. This makes it exciting and makes outcomes of a war not so easy to determine.
"As long as you have better tech and economy, there is now way you lose with this system"
Is that not exactly how war works?
@@puernatura8998 No, it literally isn't. 1st Boer War is a war in this period which clearly counters that narrative. Same with the 1st Balkan War.
Terrain modifiers mainly just like in most pdx games. With this system I guess you can put a general as idle on a front and let the enemy advance and take attrition until they reach a very good and defencible terrain for you. Then you put that general on defence and let the enemy grind away their troops if they want. That is in pure warfare mechanics without any diplomacy involved i.e. having a strong ally, receiving support and all other stuff from stronger nations etc.
This is kinda equivalent to real wars where the main cause of a stronger nation losing to a much weaker nations is because of strong defencible terrain and attrition.
@@puernatura8998 Absolutely not, even in more recent wars like Vietnam, tech and economy migh be deemed almost useless against an enemy that knows how to use their limited resources in their favor.
This is my concern about the seeming lack of opportunities for micromanaging. It’s nice being able to use maneuver and position to pocket or cut off forces and whittle down a numerically larger one
I really hope for a bit more control in warfare, like priority points to advance towards, manualle setting up frontlines so you can decide what to attack and what not
That's what players actually want, or just the Victoria 2 system, but sadly Paradox has neglected it totally.
100% agree. I’m okay with the old Vicky 2 or EU4 system of micromanaging stacks but I’m also okay with a fleshed out front lines system like HOI4. I don’t understand why they have gone this route except that they have professed that war is not meant to be a rewarding gameplay mechanic in Vicky 3 and it’s undesirable at best as a last resort to reach diplomatic play goals. So I’m thinking that the devs wanted us to hate the system or at least not enjoy it because we aren’t supposed to be using warfare as a rewarding game mechanic. Hopefully they will roll out some big war update/DLC in the near future.
@@crowneproductions9908 I mean I definitely prefer this over the Vic 2/EU4 style of cancer warfare. Still more control would be appreciated
@@cassu6 skill issue
@@crowneproductions9908 The thing is that you're approaching Vicky's warfare from your experience with other PDX titles. But that's not how the devs see it. Victoria is not about war like HoI4 or painting maps like EU4, it's all about politics and economics in a rapidly changing modern era. Vicky II felt weird; warfare was bland, superficial, and more often than not annoying. You had to micromanage your army stacks like in EU, but whereas that's fine for EU it really didn't make sense that armies were these largely static entities that were in no way as complex as building industries, managing your colonies, changing your government, etc. Perhaps it could have worked with the deeper mechanics of HoI4, but then Victoria would be all about war which would be even worse. After all, as Clausewitz said, war is diplomacy by other means - and that's exactly what Vicky 3's warfare mechanics seem to do.
I mean, we still have to manage all the build-up towards and logistics behind war - it's not like war is now this abstract affair like it is in EU4.
I'm fine with some automated warfare where you're instructing AI strategy, but is it only limited to advancing/defending war fronts? You can't tell your generals to maneuver troops such that they focus on breaking through certain front sections and beelining for key provinces? Like high risk high reward power plays early on when Napoleon-inspired war tactics still worked effectively. Because if not, the game wont be that accurate because war of attrition fronts don't really represent much of the Victorian period's warfare until WWI
Yeah this feels really dumbed down to a level where you don't have any influence in making power plays, it's just click a button and hope your stats are good enough to push.
that's the boat I'm in, personally, I think using HOI4's battleplan system, wit some tweaks, and without being able to control individual units manually would have been amazing.
The head of state shouldn't be involved at the operational level in the military. The king shouldn't be telling generals how to maneuver and how to break fronts. The military decides that. In WW1 the Czar kept trying to tell the military what to do and things didn't go very well. If this is a type of depiction of reality then you tell the military what your goals are they come up with the plans to make that happen.
@@snowbear163 i mean the head of state isnt also operationally involved in building every factory in every state, it’s delegated to state officials and economists in real life. but GSGs are games that operate like board games, you control aspects of certain game features regardless of how much of a simulation they are in near omnipotent-level. If we apply that logic then you also shouldnt be seeing anything globally from a bird’s eye view because the head of state didnt have that ability irl
also it’s merely from an instructional level. like for example, during the ACW Licoln laid out clear instructions for his generals to capture Richmond quickly, but his timid and incompetent generals didnt do that. Atleast give the player the more options to instruct the AI on what it should, not just almost a binary go attack or defend system it has now
Hm, still feels a bit bare to be honest. I like the new ideas but they just don't seem that developed yet. Also, I would like to be able to set some degree of priorities regarding provinces, You might want to attack a ery specific area which is where the enemy has his arms industry for instance. Also, I hope the war support mechanic isn't like Stellaris, where you can be at war ahd have litterally nothing happening to your pops or country and for some reason still have war exhaustion (or, in this case, war support) decrease.
"Also, I hope the war support mechanic isn't like Stellaris, where you can be at war ahd have litterally nothing happening to your pops or country and for some reason still have war exhaustion (or, in this case, war support) decrease." you predicted it my guy
@@benjaminpolitics yep
It's hilarious you can make such a pisspoor system, gaslight the players about it and people will eat it up anyway
Looks like a mobile game advertised by RUclipsrs, Victora Shadow legends or some shit.
Damn, I loved seeing the various army soldiers in uniforms on the map. It made the game feel more alive. Hopefully one day they get brought in by a dlc or mod.
Yeah, it definitely added a feeling of place and time, for sure.
I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if it's possible to mod combat back into the game
Why a DLC? Every prior game had it for free. Don't let them take this away and lock it behind a paywall.
Not a fan of the new warfare system. So much control has been removed... it's just clear that it will come back later packaged in a DLC
I want the game to have some control over the military. Not asking for micro but some control and visualization of my Army and Navy, air force later. Currently I see only a few options as mentioned in the video. Rulers in this era had way more control over their military matters. Think of Tsars Kaisers Emperors and chancellors that ruled in this century.
Combat dlc
They will flesh out the warfare mechanics later.
Everyone wanted better. Literally nobody wanted the system
@@barryDawg123 you're probably right and it makes me sick. It should be in the base game
mm.... OK. No changes to combat since the leaks. That's concerning. I mean, surely there will be balance changes.
But...like... at the best of times, Paradox combat can be summed up as "throwing larger numbers into a random number generator than your opponents to win."
And this just goes and takes it to the extreme where there's not even the option of where you engage or what terrain, or even the ability to pick off small stacks of out-of-positions ships/soldiers.
jesus christ that microphone "SSSSTTTSSSSSS SSSTTTSSSSS STSSTSTSTSTTSSTSSSSSSSS"
There's two-way peace deals in Vic 3? That's awesome! I've wanted them in paradox games forever.
Here how Paradox should add: a button. If People want to see little men fighting, shooting at each other’s turn on. If you want immersion turn off. Though with a giant railroad that have train as big as cities I find it hard to know where is the immersion people kept talking about. Having unit and the ability to micro it (at the very least similar to front command in hoi4) is essential. War has always been a part of civilization and paradox game, from crusader kings to Europa universalis, from imperator Rome to Stellaris. I don’t know why the era which stand only second to Hoi4 in term of tenacity in warfare can have the military system reduce to not even showing soldier and micro them a little.
For the thousand time I understand that this is a game focus on politic and pop micromanaging but same thing for Europa universalis which suppose to focus on trade and exploration. War can’t be reduce even in this game.
Bro this is horrible...
No armies on the map, not even visual representations of battles along the front.
Literally just a mobile cookie clicker with numbers ticking down.
What is this trash? Been a huge fan of EVERY Paradox game since CK2.
Sooo glad about "patrol coast" and "naval invasion" settings for naval warfare. When first announced this was very unclear how easy it would be to interact naval combat with army landings, as opposed to strictly economic benefits.
How and why do you somehow completely change and diminish a pre-existing, working system for war? Why not improve it? What the hell is this?
Love that All Quiet on the Western Front feel with insane attrition
@Boon2000 If you want a war game play Hoi4, this isn't the game for you
@Boon2000 play end of a new beginning, a hoi4 mod, you will love it
@@Flash4ML a strategy game without strategy is made for who then? The brainless?
@@Flash4ML cope. Pdx games always have war to a small degree. Stellaris is more complex than this. Is stellaris a war game? No. Its just one of 10 different components that make it fun. You know. The reason we play games.
@@monarchtherapsidsinostran9125 Lol how is that cope? I agree that Paradox games always have some form of war, is this game any different? The majority of people in the comment section are acting like warfare should be one of the main focuses of the game, which it isn't and shouldn't be.
thanks for making this little tutorial series, can't wait to play the game on Tuesday!
I'm hyped for the economy and the pop mechanics, but the warfare feels really lacking. I hope the devs (and managament) decide to work on the warfare system, I'm still going to buy the game but it feels like I'm giving paradox a last chance, the last few DLC's (Royal Court, By Blood alone, Iberian struggle) have been pretty dissapointing and I'm hoping Vic 3 isn't getting the same treatment, it's a good base to build on, but it still needs quite some work that isn't going to be fixed by a DLC that gives you a fancy throne room for €30.
Royal Court was pretty decent.
@@jamesli2545 It was okay, but I found it pretty lacking for the price they were asking.
Oh my gosh. Are you seriously going to go jump ships and join Total War?
@@maxs.5112 Why not? It's basically the same type of map but its actually more accurate and lets you do battles, atleast they make consistent DLCS
The two characters on the battle screen could be replaced by some more fitting battle scenes
While I like the new front system and not having to micro, I would still want more involvement in the war process. For example, recruiting generals gives them random traits. Why not build a military academy which will influence which traits I want for generals by a certain percent? Hopefully the war element receives more updates as while its not entirely bad, it could use some improvements.
That would be cool, hopefully that improves over time
I think bringing back the war plans from Vic 2 and allowing you to customize the equipment of your army would be a good way to allow for player interaction in wars.
Also allowing us to set the general tactics of our Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery would be good, like massed artillery, skirmishing cav and loose order infantry. That way while you don’t have a hand in what your armies do on the front you do set the general school of thought for your generals and armies.
I agree. I think they cut down on the content for war and focuses on diplo and econ because of time constraints
@@romanboi3115 they literally said that taking out the old war system and implementing this system was perhaps the hardest and most time consuming aspect of development so I have to believe that the system we’re getting is not fully developed.
@@iterationfackshet1990 When replacing something, you need to first figure out what you are gonna replace it with. So that is where 75% of the time and energy went into, developing a replacement idea. Now they better add onto it to give me a little more control on what the army does. Giving some objectives would be nice, but this system will work for now.
Brb, just gonna play RISK instead lmao
The thing that worries me here is the player's lack of agency/preparation for an upcoming war. For example, there is no way to build fortifications. Not to mention, it seems both defender and the attacker are suffering some attrition. That seems a bit off.
Is there maybe a way to pick a strategy or something. (Like scorch Earth tactics for a defender, or guerilla warfare ??)
Those tactics are implemented by technologies
@Filolog Yeah trenchfoot and starvation didnt give a shit if you were attacking or defending lol.
I am not against attrition. But if you have good supplies and logistics (your infrastructure etc) . You should likely not get the same attrition as if you were fighting in swamps. Also, I see no indication that terrain or season affecting attrition.
wait thats so dumb, why is there no way to build forts????????????? well bound to be added by dlc lol
Dont kid yourself the only reason they changed this system is not to make the game better or becaus they thought it would be the best for the game, it's because they needed a system that would be easy and very compatible with consoles.
Helium Voice
Thank you for making this tutorial. Now I know I won't buy this game
War system looks like a big let down tbh
lmao her voice at 1:14
like nails on a chalkboard
I like the look of how warfare has been done. As in it's not micro heavy and largely takes care of itself. Too much micro and unit control on this scale would bog the game down into just another war game.
This is the exact problem with vicky2, especially in multiplayer where games are decided often purely because of micro mistakes. Its fine for Hoi4 and CK3(hoi4 is designed for it, and ck3 never has so many units that it becomes obnoxious to micro) but I hope vicky3's success leads them to do similar things when EU5 eventually rolls out. More dank simulation stuff less abusing AI into making pathing mistakes + no late game wars where you need to individually micro hundreds of thousands potentially millions of troops.
I agree,I feel like they should include more mechanics to the front system as well though
@@daroaminggnome They could have gone for a hybrid system, but what this new "no micro" system does is completely remove skill. In multiplayer you could defeat a larger enemy by using your troops wisely.
@@Zorro9129 Says a man that has never played the game lmao. How can you say there is no skill involved when you've never beaten a single opponent be they AI or player?
Which is a fair opinion, so is the fact that not enough micro would just turn the game into "look at the line and press go".
my 300 russian units vs 500 qing unit face each other on the frontline
the actual battle 4 russian vs 10 qing represent by 2 artilerries shooting at each other
well done paradox
Well paradox, I think it is fair to say that even though we think this was a good try to make something different from wars...it is obviously not a good system. I agree with the fact that yeah it's a game that gives more reward in being a good country builder and I agree with that and I have to admit that I am not sure how can you change that, but right now I think it is fair to say that war system is really bad and that there is a general consensus about this being bad.
Huge thanks to you, Ezekiel, PartyElite and PDX for letting us have not-so-painful start on Tuesday. 😄
And what about Cara?
@@Psycho250785 What about Cara?
@@Psycho250785 cara is the "you" in that comment ;)
@@DidamDFP Yup. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough. I know it's not her channel.
cara can go to hell and cook for us
I have never heard a girl with voice cracks they are so weird wtf
prob a guy turned girl
"girl"
I like this whole series and idea but something about cara’s voice is just…. Not pleasing to listen to
the voicecracks kill me
I hope they might change this system. Like you can control where you army will attack in certein areas. Thats my only complaint, Otherwise this gma looks awesome and already pre ordered it
victoria is not a war game. It's focused on economics, include the economics of war.
More depth to the warfare system would come in the way of more deep supply lines or ways to use your army to disrupt their economy, not micro control of units
They did say they want to add more commands/options for the player, but I don't think that'd come anytime soon unfortunately
@@magica3526 making the game more complex in areas other than war does not require you to dumb down and make war boring. This is not a good argument. The economy looks amazing, but war doesn't look very engaging. Making the economy engaging shouldn't come at the cost of making war boring. Why can you not have both?
Edit: and he's asking for more options, not micro control. For example, spearhead lines from HoI4 would be cool, so you can recreate things like sherman's March to the sea
@@magica3526 bro pls its not a wargame it just takes place in a time where there was an enormous world war alongside many many small conflicts
@@senseishu937 at least being able to plan your front like in Vic 2 would be good, adding war plans back could be a good way to add more player control while not having a ton of micro. Also allowing us to see our standing professional armies during peace would be good as well.
I'm not a fan of how the ground war works. The frontline mechanic would actually do great in in HoI4 or if Vic3 was just a WW1 game, but WW1 is very late game and much of the Victorian Era WAS chasing around each others armies. It seems ill thought out. A good idea, but for the wrong game.
Who agrees to put in the peace treaties not the conquest of the whole region but to contemplate the conquest of a part or to divide the region and create a satellite state?
And the combat system turned out to be utter trash, like so many warned and so many didn't heed. Bravo Paradox, you have made your absolute worst warfare system, if it can even be called such.
I expected this tutorial nontheless explain how SPECIFICALLY one army can be better than another. I literally sent a general with like 20 batallions to advance on a frontline against ENEMY GENERAL WHO HAD 10 BATALLIONS AND MY SIDE LOST! It's hilarious because buffs were on my side we had everything fine and we lost like that! WHAT IS THIS!?
Seems... simple. Maybe too simple.
Could be. I prefer it to be simplistic and a good foundation for future development then a poor revamp of what we already know though, I think even if it's lackluster on release, it's definitely a step in the right direction
@@Flash4ML Yeah now they make us buy dlc in order to fix something that should've been working at launch , definitely a step in the right direction.
@@MuazzamKhan786 You must be new here if you're seriously complaining about their DLC policy
War is disappointing in Victoria 3, and because of that fact diplomatic plays are bad I mean knowing who’s gonna win because of money, tech and numbers isn’t a war system that inspires people to be proud when they win a war and completely disabled the use of creative thinking to use in conflicts but instead of crying and giving no advise I’ll try and give ideas that’ll make warfare more fun first I’m not asking for the reintroduction of the stack combat that was so cancerous in Victoria 2, what I’m asking for is theses changes, first being able to tell your generals where to go is a simple but very nice edition to add second would be a more complex supply system so theres three buttons on the left and right, on the right there is a gradual increase in supply consumption but also a increase in attack and defence say 30% extra attack but 100% extra supply consumption or something and on the left side you use less supply but you do less defence and attack say 40% less supply consumption 25% less defence and attack and it increases each stat each button you press further right or left, another good order would be so I can attack railways if I get near them so the supply train either doesn’t come or I steal there equipment then it takes a while to buy then send another train, another thing I’d add is encirclement if you encircle an enemy army they have a minus 30% morale modifier and don’t get supplied guns or food so they gradually start either surrendering or starving and if you attack the encircled army if they run out of morale they surrender the best thing about this is that a general that you’ve given a lot of supply to will be loaded with supply and if encircled could change the direction of the war because 20% of your war supplies have been taken out of the equation by being encircled. and finally everyone’s least favourite system for paradox games the navy for the navy you could have the same supply system for the army but it’ll cost more but add another system say Britain has 200 ships and Germany has 130 all are latest to date ships and same tech everything but Britain sends in a full 200 ship death stacks but Germany only sends 100 the battle rages on but now Germany sends in his 30 ships and because of that the uk ships have 5% less defence to all ships but do 30% less damage to the new ships and take 25% more damage and then when the uk has to resupply without fear of retaliation the 30 German ships follow the uk navy back to the coast and since the uk navy has little to no ammo they do minimal if not no damage while being chased while in return because of not being able to fire back that much or at all take a 10% more damage plus the other damage increases if the Germans decide to use more supplies and do 90% less damage if very low on ammo or no damage if they have no ammo. Thanks for hearing me rant I just wanted to add a way to fix the war system and not just complain thanks everyone.
I've been waiting for this one! Warfare is definitely my #1 concern with Victoria 3
If that’s the case I’d go back to Vic2. Warfare seems quite lacklustre in this game
@@finn4012 or go to HOI4 where they already do this. Seems a lot of people want HOI4 just in the 1800s. They can just play a mod.
@@snowbear163 how time is setup in hoi4 doesn't work in this sense
@@snowbear163 I would be fine with the addition of small visible units on the map. I really want those beautiful 19th century military uniforms displayed in all their glory.
Hopefully they will add something cosmetic later on.
@@helmuthvonmoltke5518 Im 100% sure that military is gonna get the attention it needs soon. If I could tell my army to secure certain regions first and had all the little men running around I would say the system is good to go. But I think they cut its dev time down to focus on politics and economics.
I love you cara
The hell is up with Cara's voice? Cracks like mine when I was 15. Honey and lemon before recording?
Release is super close so no changes will be made rn but hopefully in the future they add more control over a front such as giving your generals to capture a specific province etc
Front lines kills it, zero interest in just front lines and dice rolls.
Voicecrack Armageddon
Haven't been keeping up with the game or it's development - will give it a go tomorrow but... What the hell happened here? Who asked for warfare to be this uninvolved? It looks pretty ugly too. I dunno... I really hope the economics is actually fun enough to make up for this.
get somebody else to read this kind of stuff, it can be heard how she dosen't give 2 shingles about it
i would actually like the micro and out smart the enemy like every other paradox game. instead we got dice rolls with no way to influcence them other than pressing "Attack, Defend, Standby".
no micro = no skill expression. great direction for a game set in an era of multiple wars. hopefully DLC will fix this disaster of a war system to give us stuff to show skill expression with.
Yuck! I think I'll stick to Victoria 2.
Game loses it's charm without a proper warfare system.
This aged well, with warfare being the main issue that made thousands of people abandon the mess that is Victoria 3
WTF Did u guys did with the warfare OMGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I think you need to fire whoever came up for the idea of this warfare system
This is like a game of chess that has no pieces and the winner is determined by who has the highest IQ, or a game of Monopoly without money where the winner is determined by who has the nicest suit.
was very happy to see vicky 3 coming out but i think this game is going to be very barren on launch
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it looks like land warfare is still random and no tactics are involved at all...
One more weekend and workday 🙌 Thanks for sharing these details awesome !
They are gambling with this
If war is just pressing some buttons now then at least add more buttons(plunder,raze city,enslave,build colony). Also ditch that horrible voice. Painful.
I absolutely hated the micro in Victoria 2, but this is even worse.
The occupation graphic with the flags is kind of gross
Her voice is making this unwatchable for me holy frick...
Ik same for me, dunno what it is precisely but I cannot stand her voice.
Don´t know what´s worse. The war system or this voice.
How are fleets built? Do you build individual ships, or do your buildings give you a set amount, like a shipyard version of the barracks?
It works like the barracks. Each Naval Base building level gives one "flotilla" and the production methods determine what exact ships are in said flotilla and therefore their stats and upkeep cost. Flotilla are then assigned to Admirals who you then order to do things in naval zones, much like how battalions are assigned to Generals who are then assigned to fronts
@@Indignation211 alright cool, thanks for the reply!
A tutorial on warfare?, what warfare?
No Animations :DDD You can't make this up.
The art of pushing stop and go - Sun Tzu
cara does a terrible jov
You talk to fast, and no change to read.......very poor, presentation. If you were presenting in my business, you would be fired. If thats the tutorial for a complicated game.....its simply not worth the cost.
Holy shit cara made it into an official paradox vid!!!
She did a very good job of explaining this. Clear and concise.🙂
nein men do it better and humorous
Dear paradox, average modern CPU have at least 4 cores and 8 threads, and your game post 1910 is unplayable while my CPU is just there chilling
You have to optimize your engine or allow it to use more resources. This is the complain of a unsatisfied client.
where fortifications?
Like planes they were invented after game enddate. Sorry.
Combat seems simple enough, it will certainly change significantly over time.
I hope
Hopefully they go back to a more traditional skill based army building style like in Vic2 this is simply so the fucking game can launch on console
@@Princeofbelka "Skilled Based" You mean meta abuse and hypercheese
@@romanboi3115 yea skill based you have to get good to cheese
@@Princeofbelka Its not skill if its legally cheating
So i wont have to micro? hell yeah, i like HoI4's micro but in CK3 i really don't.
EDIT: Nevermind, not what i expected, i watched some gameplay of it and it looks very underwhelming.
Kinda disappointed with this kind of warfare, too boring and very untactical. Miss the old style warfare like in Victoria 2 or other Paradox games. Why don't create a warfare mechanism like the HOI4 ones, that would be amazing.
I’m mixed about this system and I’ll have to see for myself as I’m not entirely sold on this. Everything else looks good but I feel like Vic 2’s military system would’ve been a better jumping off point rather than starting fresh.
I wouldn’t mind something like what they’ve got, if maybe you could at some great cost micro an army or two, like concentrating forces for a breakthrough rather than grinding it out across the whole front. They’ve got a bit of a challenge, having to cover both warfare as it was fought a bit after Napoleon, with huge set piece battles and armies on maneuver looking for a battlefield, all the way to WWI total war, battles stretching across entire borders. It would be neat if there was a transition somewhere through tech or something, that allowed the fronts to form and before that is more like Napoleonic armies. Like I’d hope we would have opportunities in late game to pocket an army and cut it off from supply, but I’m not sure this system allows that.
I disagree, the Vic2 system is terrible, this may not seem interesting or fun but it's laying the foundation for how they want war to work in Vic3, just slotting in Vic2's system bc they don't have a very good non-micro system yet would not be good game design
@@Flash4ML "Laying the foundation"
I hate how people are trained to expect core game mechanics to be introduced only by DLC. Also the Victoria 2 system is janky but surprisingly good, multiplayer wars actually reflect history in how the game progresses. I doubt Victoria 3 will ever match that.
As someone mentioned on another post, Paradox games are usually bare bones at launch. This system has a lot of potential and can keep out the old Vic2 micro misery
@@Zorro9129 I share your annoyance that Paradox games are usually bare bones at release, but this is the reality, expecting anything else is just setting yourself up for disappointment. Trust me, I've been through this many times, and I've been disappointed time and time again bc I expected a finished product, but that's just not how Paradox games work. Also I disagree that the Vic2 system was good but that's a different matter