Pretty happy to see paradox be open about so many things they are working on, makes me think they aren’t hiding the best fixes and changes behind the dlc wall
The next Stellaris free patch is going to overhaul several aspects of the game, I don't understand the hate Paradox gets. Any other major studio would be selling cosmetics instead.
@@kaiseramadeus233 I don't play Eu4 anymore. Takes too long to load. But it's better having a game supported with new content after lunch than abandoned. No one is forcing you to buy, even eu4 has lots of free updates despite being old.
I'm happy to see Paradox sticking to its gun on the military stuff in terms of macromanagement, and while I understand it might be a little too automated right now, I don't want the micromanagement of this game to increase in warfare. The over all concept is sound, so I'm happy to see they mostly seem to be just tweaking it, rather than going for a new model.
@@jeremyklein9359 yup warfare has always been one of the most tedious parts of paradox games. Only HOI4’s system is interesting but unfortunately that is also the only good thing about HOI4
@@stoopidapples1596 That's... a bit harsh, but I do remember a major reason I purchased Hoi4 in the first place was because of its frontline system. So yeah, I'm really hopeful that the system Victoria 3 has can succeed, and just win everyone over.
One big thing I wanna see is the ability to add more war goals during a war, not just during the diplomatic play. It's really annoying starting a war, beating the war leader and getting my goal, but the allies keep fighting and dragging the war out. It'd be nice to be able to punish them for dragging it out by adding war goals. Maybe also letting nations join a side mid-war? The other big thing is allies bail on wars so easily. I had a playthrough as America where I was allied to France and they kept starting diplo play after diplo play against minor African nations. It was a good 5 wars one after another. Because of this, I couldn't start my own war against Mexico. Then the second I start my diplo play against Mexico, France breaks the alliance. I've never started a diplo play and had my ally stick around for it. It's really frustrating
I would really love if they added more historical clothing/uniforms for different countries. Ik its a really small thing but it would be more imersive and fun if for instance smaller countries like Sweden has their destincte uniforms aswell as the gb's.
"a little too automated" It is literally only automated The player makes no decisions over the strategy of the battle Somehow they took hoi4 battleplanning and made that the only choice you have in warfare, to turn on the battleplan or not
You want to know the worst part about this system, it wasn't suppose to take up alot of resources, But guess what it did, it sucked up a bunch of resources just to remove player agency from war, in a time period filled with wars
I think the best avenue for future DLC for Victoria 3 is probably Unique interest groups and possible more dynamic interest groups for specific countries.
Counter-sway, land trades and offering specific concessions all sound like it'll take diplomacy to a new level. Excited! Only thing I think it's missing is the option to "sway to abstain" (swaying not for parties to get involved, but to stay out of the fight altogether). Maybe even sway weight abstaining based on if powerful AI nations would even get involved. (I'm kind of getting sick of WW1 starting in the 1840s because one state with 3 military units in the middle of bumf**k nowhere tried to take a neighboring state with 2 units and EVERYONE just HAD to be in on it: it's been more than a couple times. Seriously, some of the fights I see Britain and France in legit aren't worth the skin of their knuckles and I'm just sitting there going "why?!" Sorry. Tangent over.)
I mean your example sounds a bit extreme, but historically is not that far fetched. I'm pretty sure the seven years war started of as some incident in North America and eventually got France and Britain involved. France lost, but only ~2 Decades later decided to join the USA in their war for independece and get back at Britain. And last but not least, one political assasination escalated into WW1. Grudges were a hell of a drug back then in Europe.
@@tayyikai5470 You can declare neutrality as neither the attacker or defender. I'm referring to the ability of an attacker or defender to request other parties with an interest in the area to declare neutrality. Basically asking everyone else to "stay out of it" lol
Let's try and be positive and encourage the devs. I think Paradox are a great game company, which do not necessarily get everything right first try, but they really stick with it and improve games based on community feedback. They don't take the easy route and produce very simplistic games, they trust their player base and deliver great games. They've provided a gateway for so many people to enjoy and engage with history, which I can say personally as I've learned about the existence of entire events, empires, religions and cultures from CK, EU4, VIC and HOI. Which has allowed me to search about them and learn even more. Which is fantastic!
The way the investment pool works now I think could be improved. I'd like to see specific interest groups building in your country, kind of like in Vicky 2. With the type of construction influenced by their ideology, wealth, and laws. So even if you implement a public schooling system your religious pops would still build church schools in their most influential states. Or private costly schools used by aristocrats or capitalists.
Totally agree on the former point, I think that’s a really good idea. I think latter point would be better addressed by having interest groups undermine institutions based on how strong opposing groups are in your states and how happy they are. The public schooling and health systems in a lot of countries, even today, are often undermined by wealthy interest groups setting up parallel institutions that draw support and resources away from the public systems, so that could be modelled. Heck in the U.K., we’ve had something like five prime ministers in 100 years from state schools out of… er depends who got sacked this week, I don’t want to give a number.
watched a couple videos covering this info. Found your coverage the best. You jumped into the actual information quickly without a five or six minute intro ramble. You commented on each upcoming change in an articulate way that explained the idea and then offered reasonable commentary. Thank you for excellent coverage of this important information. Keep up the great work.
For expeditions it wasn't that I found them hard to find, it was that it wasn't worth the effort. I successfully mapped the Congo River and all I got was a small 5 year Prestige buff, the Explorer trait for my General (who already had it hence why he was sent) and some popularity for that same general. It was really disappointing because I like the concept of having to manage Progress and Peril through events.
The reverse sway (they need a better name, sounds like a way of undoing an opponent's sway) and and economic system improvements sound nice, I just hope certain bugs are fixed, particularly your commanders being "busy" for the rest of their lives even after an expedition ends.
Gonna keep commenting this exploit until they patch it Hey guys, are you ever sick of your troops taking weeks or months to reach new front lines in far away places after clearing out a different enemy territory (or if you play prussia and need your troops to travel frontlines A LOT) well try this! -> assign your general to the frontline as you normally would but be sure to assign them on the opposite of what you want them to actually do ie attack for defense. -> right click the general and click switch order to ___ -> you have invented teleportation.
Also there is an easy way to avoid the american cival war 90% of the time (as Ive had to reset my American campaign a few times due to Russia assisting Mexico in the frontier wars) -> launch game as America -> DO NOT unpause, do this from day 1 -> reform gov, kick out planters bring in whigs (intellegencia but I have seen the rural folk want to join it already so I assume the parties can vary) this will actually increase your govt legitimacy, if it lowers it try adding in the industrialists, usually does the trick. -> stay paused, go to laws, ban slavery. Return to government and either bolster the intellegencia (if thats your goal playthrough since its easy to ride them out from the start) or you can supress the planters. You will have enough authority to do both but you want to save 200 for service taxes as its the most lucrative you can tax. -> my one addition is that they will BEGIN revolting but it will stall out at like 60% and just hover there until the law passes. If they do not begin supressing them instead of whatever else you were doing.
Private sector autonomous factory building is a *huge* deal for me. If they do that I'll probably buy the game. It's nice to hear that they're actually *listening* to the community with this one.
I get that it's controversial. But warfare has always been one of my least favorite mechanics in PDX games. So I love the fact that it's basically handled by the AI this time around. I hope they don't change it too much. I'd rather micromanage my GDP than my map painting brush.
But whats the point of building up that mega economy? In the Victorian period it was to sustain massive and growing militaries. Arm's races demanded resources and opening of markets to aquire the necessary goods. Japan starts the war in the pacific over getting resources to fuel its military. The whole point is that military is often one of the climaxes alongside revolutions and upheaval (which also often include fighting). So I think people just brushing the miliary aspect of the game aside sucks for the overall historical immersion
I'd like to be able to combine armies. After doing a lot of mobilizations, I end up with lots of generals some with just a few units each. It would be good to consolidate these small armies into larger ones. And with lots of generals, I'm also expending a lot of bureaucracy.
While I definetly agree with you and think that we need a system to assign troops to different armies, I would recomend not getting many generals unless it is necessary. I feel like the only good reason to have a lot of generals is if you got a lot of HQs and especially frontlines. But I feel like there aren't many nations where you actually need to have that many, most of my wars are fought in very few frontlines to justify that.
I would like them to add certain diplomatic actions, such as influence subjects of another country to rebel, decisions to destabilize other's country economy by taking specific actions, offer other things not just an obligation to a country, for example offer a small peace of land plus a trade agreement to get a strong alliance with a global power, many things can be added in the diplomacy that i would love to have properly develop and balanced
I’m completely fine with not being able to directly control armies (though would still prefer it) but FINALLY atleast being able to control the war plans better I’m completely fine with this seems like a great change and I’m glad paradox is gonna actually work towards improving the title sooner rather than later, we don’t need another imperator where the game eventually became enjoyable but was too late for relevance
The current war system is definitely the worst paradox has implemented. Warfare feels tedious and unrewarding. People can argue as much as they want but this game takes place in WW1, and many nation formables are solely formable through conquest. You NEED to give players more extensive and tactical control of warfare instead of just assigning fronts and watching numbers.
I also feel like it leaves you no agency. Warfare is really just a numbers game, while in Vicky2, ck3, euiv, hoi4 etc. you really have an advantage of maneuvers. You can defeat numerically and even technologically superior enemies with clever movement and tactics.
I kinda like the whole bit where the AI or player can concede the main point to force a peace. Like what’s the point of giving in and throwing in the towel if the enemy gets EVERYTHING they asked for? Like the point of this is to show that the defender is being “reasonable” and conceding one big point to avoid war and secure peace. Counter to this I think there should be an option for the aggressor to still push for the rest but for more infamy. Because on paper it reads: yeah they gave you the biggest part of the deal and you still want war? You should be able to get the other thing, but also look like a warmonger for it.
Agreed, they should improve on this rather than get rid of it. They're way too comfortable using overly simple changes to things. People come back to play some of their games for thousands of hours because of little systems like this and nuance and complexity. I'm afraid they're trying to design "stupid" games to appeal to a larger market.
Very pleased with their plan. I think the game has really solid mechanics they just need some polish and embellishment. I already think it's fun, but the game will be absolutely amazing in a couple years.
In my experience, when an AI backs down and cedes your primary war goal the truce is not 12 months, but 5 years. 5 years of course is 1/20 of the length for the entire game. This may depend on the what the wargoal is as I don't know for sure, but this was my experience with conquering Utah from Mexico. edit: Unless if there is another way, I believe it is impossible to truce break.
The war gameplay part of Victoria 3 feels very rough and rushed. I think Paradox is going to do a major overhal of the war, armies, battles of Victoria 3 later on down the road, despite what they say. Even with the new update to it, it still feels like it isn't complete and rushed. Just my two cents.
Country backing away in diplomatic play wouldn't be so bad if you would get short truce, but you infact get 5 years. Thats why if im attacking a smaller nation i will allways go for the puppet play (unless they are 1 province)
Navies in the Victorian age focused much more on static defensive attack. That should be a much bigger feature if you want to be historical. Look at the Crimea war, the British Navy used coastal bombardment extensively in the Black Sea and the Baltic. Its really only late in the period that WW1 style sea battle thinking came to dominate. It should be a feature to use your nave to go in an destroy ports, and do close legally binding blockades. Neutral countries should be accepting these blockades. Naval warfare is not just raiding, its legal. Also, Armed Forces should not be unified! In Japan the competition between Navy and Army play an important role. The same is true for Britain, just look at the conflict between them before WW1. Navy and Armies are different and that's an important part of that period.
I think a good addition to the existing law and government area would be to make it harder to swap some things from one side to another. I feel like going from a monarchy to anything else would radicalize over 90% of the population whether its for or against
@@NotThatJojjo you're absolutely correct. Upon playing some Asain powers ive discovered this as well, I guess you can say my real issue with it is that they made libral countries waaay to willing to be libral. Also they did America dirty with how fucked the scripted civil war is. The southern planters having only like 30% political power in America during this tine period is hilariously dumb. The main point of why the south succeeded was because their economy was BOOMING off the backs of slave ran cotton plantations and in the game thats not represented at all. The slavers arent any richer and even worse the southern states in the US have like 1 or 2 cotton plantations total when in reality the south had cotton growing everywhere and they were prestigious for exactly that.
88 hours in and honestly i had mixed reviews so far. The game has a very solid base, maybe the best any paradox game ever had, but the devs URGENTLY NEED to optimize more the late-game. They have been working with the new clausewitz engine for a beyond reasonable time and should have been able to at least work around the performance issues. Late game lag has been a huge issue since stellaris and they need to better organize the pop system if they wish to solve it.
@@BringbackgAmberleafns All PDX games suffer from late game lag. It isn't just the pops. It's just a reflection of how much shit is going on under the hood of these games.
@@BringbackgAmberleafns its not just pops. Its all there other games using the same engine. Just poor performance as the game goes on and this has been an issue for years. Woulda hoped the new games could have at least tried to fix this.
Trying to play shewa I have 50 divisions and was losing to 13 and the solution to me being constantly outnumbered was to delete one of my three generals to make the AI rethink stuff somehow and then I instantly encircled and occupied their nation in less than a week, sadly they were still in my capital and I auto-capitulated to them even though I had them encircled and full occupied besides my capital.
What really breaks my immersion is Argentina never expanding into the Tehuelche and random Aboriginal immigration into south america, instead of the historical italian, german and ukrainian migration that never happens when it should have happened
As prussia its SUPER easy to unite Germany and you dont even need to go to war usually, but Italy almost never forms and I haven't yet seen the AI even form NGF let alone Germany, I played a qing game, got to the 1910s and prussia was still a thing, didn't even own Hanover
I’m glad it’s not just me. My specs are getting a bit old but still meet the recommended specs on Steam. I can’t play past 1890 until the game slows to a crawl. Hopefully that gets fixed soon.
I'm liking the look of these ideas, and I think even moreso I'm happy with the way they're presenting them, and the openness in their design philosophy. It's clear that they have a vision for how they want the game to FEEL, and everything they do is in service of that vision. Love it. I'd love to see an expansion on the relationship between subject and overlord, to make it more interesting to play as a puppet state. At present the only thing you can do is request independence (most likely by force). I want to see the ability to ask for autonomy (especially the ability to make diplomatic plays, something reserved for Dominions), and being able to ask the overlord to transfer territory. In a Canada playthrough, there are only two ways to try getting Newfoundland in the fold: Go independent and then war for conquest, or switch to Britain and release Newfoundland before switching back to Canada (which disables achievements). This would be great playing as a Great Power, too, if for instance you got an event where the Cape Colony asked for the transfer of a neighbouring colonial state, or if the Dutch East India company asked the Netherlands for a share on the spoils in the recent conquest of Brunei. This would all serve the flavour they're going for of making it feel like you're trying to manage a sprawling empire with emerging nationalism.
Conscripts have a 4 x defensive bonus and a 2x offensive bonus over regulars ! Troop numbers don't matter because of small battle width. 1 battle happens at once.
On the contrary to the dev diary, I find diplomacy really lacking. Even if your an economic behemoth, very difficult to throw your weight around. Being able to peaceably expand and build up a geopolitical bloc is a must - can't be done presently.
My two biggest issue with warfare is the hq system and how battles start. It feels like when not assigned to a front my armies just hibernate in a cave or something. If I’m playing as Spain, and let’s say the US tries to invade Cuba, I can’t send any of troops there until they land on Cuba. And once I kick them out my forces go back to sleep in Spain. It makes defending really annoying, and I think a better option is just allowing troops to move between HQs, but doing so increases infrastructure use if the number of soldiers exceed the amount of barracks My second issue is that having a ton of armies doesn’t seem to do anything. For instance, if I have a puppet, The AI will send in their units (which have less attack than mine) and during a defense my guys aren’t taking any part in the battle so I lose
I don't think many people want that, they mostly just want to give direction to the ai in what provinces and direction to advance and have multiple battles along a single front
@@ebarlow4940 True. Would be awesome if I could tell my armies for example to emphasize taking the Rhine area to cut off coal production or focus on taking coastal ports to disrupt their navy. Also naval invasions just don't make sense to me and I'm having a really hard time understanding how to actually make them happen since the enemy can just automatically defend coast. Since its just a frontline no matter where you land there is a battle so you can't do any landings to outflank like say the Japanese did at Hong Kong and Singapore
I do like the war system. Its more hands off, which better fits the economic focus of vicky 3. Its just so opaque and seemly random at what is and isnt possible, or why things are going poorly. Or you know, you have 100 battlions of inrregulars that will only send 2 divisions vs the enemy that has 10 divisions of skirmish infantry.
on my second game ever I was able to unite Germany by 1848 and build a 1.5 Billion pound economy by 1900. I am not even good at the game. What I personally disliked is the market. When I am the biggest producer of clothes, why can't I make it cheaper for my pop to raise my standard of living, but instead it is immediately traded away and it stays consistently expensive for my pop. I would like a feature to satiate my own market, and only export the excess. It'd hurt the economy a little bit but raise standard of living more, which was a problem for me in the beginning
I think that ouside of adding micro to war itself, they can make war more meaningful and slightly more interactable with in a different way: by working with the military instead. I think they should just try to strike a balance between war being somewhat unpredictable and chaotic, but something you can affect. They should flesh out the outside-of-actual-war stuff: maybe add more depth to the military systems? Finding some way to model things happening /within/ military culture, and how your country's economics and politics affects the army and its functioning would be cool. More events, decisions, etc too. I mean, in real life militaries aren't just cookie-cutter and the same. They have different cultural issues, processes, focuses, etc. You don't just Victorian-era-army-with-best-tech it, armies had a lot going on under the surface. Maybe the game should try to model that to some degree. It would go along with the can't-directly-interact-with-it approach too. Also make everything more transparent and add some stuff that's more direct for the min-maxers/war enjoyers. (Hey, we all need to share this game, so everyone should have get their likes considered)
Only thing I wish was there is being able to limit how many or move the amount of brigades each general has. Also some tool tip on why only some units fight in each better
Navies were critical during this time period and the fact you can't really control naval tactics to have small raiding groups or grand fleets just hurts the experience for me. The flotilla control numbers just seem arbitrary
The big historical event that doesn’t happen seems to be the Indian Mutany. At the moment there is no way to bring the East India Company under British control and the Raj just doesn’t seem to happen without a major war. Perhaps something triggered by introducing rifling.
I think they should properly show you who will fight with after u declare the war. The show u the lets say russia is on your side in the prediction, but then u declare war, the infamy updates and now russia has joined your enemy or just pissed of...
Thank god they are doing some tweaks. I actually like the "hands-off" war-system in principle, but the way the game decides what is and isnt a frontline can be quite wonky. I got especially frustrated when I (as Persia) was fighting a war in Europe and every time two frontlines merged my generals were unassigned and went back to Persia and I had to wait for two months to ship them back to the European theater. That made no sense. Improvements with navy are also very welcome, since they do indeed feel a bit lack-luster. I also think its weird that in battle allies dont fight with each other (I could be wrong but from what I see every battle is 1v1 no matter how many different nations are on a frontline. It at the very least looks that way.)
yeah i think the ai needs railroaded a bit better. they also need to sort the border gore out between canada and the US. it drives my ocd crazy seeing the US-canada border not in a straight line.
On the history part: They really need to make it less likely for Sweden to create Scandinavia. Historically Scandinavia never existed as a nation, not really. The cloest we got was the Personal Kalmar Union, and a few others. The historical way Norway and Sweden should play out is that in 1905 Norway does a diplomatic play for their independence, and Sweden backs down. So far when playing as Norway I have never made it to the 20th century, always getting the Game Over Screen, unless I rush for independence early on. I don't mind Scandinavia happening, but it's not fun losing the game without any real warning that you are about to lose. Heck I had an amazing economy, and was gearing up to go to war when I lost. So, I hope Scandinavian Formation is less likely to happen in the future.
It really sucks when you need to take like 7 states from Mexico as USA to complete Manifest Destiny but Mexico keeps just backing down each time making the whole process take like 30 years. Though Mexico does seem more willing to go to actual war if your primary demand is for a state with Gold...
@@JumboPixel Had a game as Brazil where I was going to annex half of Chile and puppet the rest. They backed down, but I got lucky. A war to puppet Paraguay pulled them back in, so I was able to annex everything else I wanted. I'll puppet them later.
A noy so much problem but a ui thing i hope they do is make it easier to see how many good u have or need trading while in the import ot export screen aswell as allowing u to see what u are making in ur nation while in a market so that if u want to split off and go ur own way as say the east indies u can see of u have everything set up to not destroy your economy
I just find it amazing that their plan is "We're going to do what we should have done from the beginning instead of releasing an alpha state game." and we're expected to be grateful they are bothering to finish the work they were paid for in the first place. Also the clear signs of hubris and lack of willingness to admit they messed up on making the mechanics shallow, RNG dependent, and as devoid of player agency as they could get away with such as 'humble' statements like "While I think what we do have here is *quite good* and **not in need of any significant redisign**..." holy shite, that right there tells you that even though they are changing things, they will die on their hill before they admit that things aren't well done.
We just need that late game lag fixed and I'll be cool with however long the wait for the rest of it is. I mostly like the warfare apart of some weird AI stuff, but I do want less opaqueness to it so I know why certain things are going wrong.
I really like these improvements they are planning, i like victoria 3 war system, of course the changes are nencesary (agency for the player, generals, etc), but the base of it i really like, its different from the other games and have good potential, also all the other changes sound really good, that statement of never taking control out of the player for me particularly its the best, that was one of the things that bothered me the most in victoria 2
does anybody else notice the ai specifically colonize where you are colonizing? for example. britain was leaving most of africa alone until i colonized gabon. then they decided they really really wanted gabon. or how in every single game of japan the ai colonizes hokkaido but never do it when playing other nations. in my japan game they colonized it in 1849. in my russia campaign it remained uncolonized at the end of the game
I want them to fix the late game slowdown, I know they're working on the solution (too many individual pops to keep track of all over the place), but for a nation with a high population it can make the game really tedious after 1900 or so. I'd also like it if they could make it so that when you're looking at a specific building in the buildings tab and hit the "back" button, it doesn't take you back to the top of the buildings tab list. It's a bit of a pain having to re-scroll down to the specific set of buildings I was looking at so I can look more closely at the next building on the list, and then have to do it again, and again. Another thing I'd like to see is a way to rebind the keys while in the game. I know you can do it by changing the 'shortcut.shortcut' file in the 'game' folder, but I suspect that's going to break every time they do an update and it'd just be nice to be able to do it in the options menu.
I hope they make changes to the central America splinter event because with how it is atm its completely rng as to of i can stop it or not. U can have 10 games where u do the same thing and u win 1 lose all others at random points i had one where country's splintered as soon as i unpaused the game lile how am i supposed to fix the problem if u dont let me
Also I've had multiple games up to 1900 and none have yet to see North Germany or Italy forming at all. Canada and Australia never done it without the British decision prompting them either.
I would really like to see some way of investing in another coutrys industry, i recently did a playtrough of two sicilys as a pacifist industrialistic economy, after a while I obviously started to really crave rubber and oil, so i started to convert some of my industry to use it just to make sure the price was high, the i set up import routes with countrys that had potential for expanding their production. But after waiting for years i realised they werent going to do it i just invaded all of ethiopia, bahrain and the UAE. Which was an easy way of fixing my problem but not how i wanted it
Pretty happy to see paradox be open about so many things they are working on, makes me think they aren’t hiding the best fixes and changes behind the dlc wall
The next Stellaris free patch is going to overhaul several aspects of the game, I don't understand the hate Paradox gets. Any other major studio would be selling cosmetics instead.
@@ka1ock Have you seen the absolute DLC orgy fest that is EU4?
@@ka1ock I know Stellaris getting patches is a good thing 100% but every overhaul update for Stellaris I realize I need to re-learn the game.
@@callmefox630 You can always play in a old version if you are averse to change. They let you downgrade on steam.
@@kaiseramadeus233 I don't play Eu4 anymore. Takes too long to load. But it's better having a game supported with new content after lunch than abandoned. No one is forcing you to buy, even eu4 has lots of free updates despite being old.
I'm happy to see Paradox sticking to its gun on the military stuff in terms of macromanagement, and while I understand it might be a little too automated right now, I don't want the micromanagement of this game to increase in warfare. The over all concept is sound, so I'm happy to see they mostly seem to be just tweaking it, rather than going for a new model.
I enjoy not just building a doom stack. Micromanaging and chasing ai armies is not a lot of fun
They could add events from generals like them requesting more supplies or asking permission to do a risky manuever
@@jeremyklein9359 yup warfare has always been one of the most tedious parts of paradox games. Only HOI4’s system is interesting but unfortunately that is also the only good thing about HOI4
Yeah I'd rather be able to look at the rest of my country and not ignore it during war.
@@stoopidapples1596 That's... a bit harsh, but I do remember a major reason I purchased Hoi4 in the first place was because of its frontline system.
So yeah, I'm really hopeful that the system Victoria 3 has can succeed, and just win everyone over.
One big thing I wanna see is the ability to add more war goals during a war, not just during the diplomatic play. It's really annoying starting a war, beating the war leader and getting my goal, but the allies keep fighting and dragging the war out. It'd be nice to be able to punish them for dragging it out by adding war goals. Maybe also letting nations join a side mid-war?
The other big thing is allies bail on wars so easily. I had a playthrough as America where I was allied to France and they kept starting diplo play after diplo play against minor African nations. It was a good 5 wars one after another. Because of this, I couldn't start my own war against Mexico. Then the second I start my diplo play against Mexico, France breaks the alliance. I've never started a diplo play and had my ally stick around for it. It's really frustrating
In my current USA playthrough Portugal stuck with me. My test game France broke the alliance but kept fighting with me lol
The french used you and threw you to the sides.
Yeah, but when the AI allies each other they go to hell together before surrendering
This sounds historically accurate for France in the 19th century tbh
I would really love if they added more historical clothing/uniforms for different countries. Ik its a really small thing but it would be more imersive and fun if for instance smaller countries like Sweden has their destincte uniforms aswell as the gb's.
Unfortunately that will definitely be sold as a flavor pack, I’ll still probably buy it though 🤓
Yeah, this 100% goes into flavor packs/dlcs
I'm pretty ok with those kinds of things being sold as DLC, because they do not affect gameplay and just add flavour.
I'm sure mods will be made, much like the Community Flavor Pack mod of CK# that adds a huge amount of historically and culturally accurate clothing
@@rockinryguy7 and this is why it will be released as a flavor pack :p
"a little too automated"
It is literally only automated
The player makes no decisions over the strategy of the battle
Somehow they took hoi4 battleplanning and made that the only choice you have in warfare, to turn on the battleplan or not
You want to know the worst part about this system, it wasn't suppose to take up alot of resources, But guess what it did, it sucked up a bunch of resources just to remove player agency from war, in a time period filled with wars
Finally they've automated the game to the point grandma can help colonize Africa from her tablet!
I think the best avenue for future DLC for Victoria 3 is probably Unique interest groups and possible more dynamic interest groups for specific countries.
Counter-sway, land trades and offering specific concessions all sound like it'll take diplomacy to a new level. Excited!
Only thing I think it's missing is the option to "sway to abstain" (swaying not for parties to get involved, but to stay out of the fight altogether). Maybe even sway weight abstaining based on if powerful AI nations would even get involved. (I'm kind of getting sick of WW1 starting in the 1840s because one state with 3 military units in the middle of bumf**k nowhere tried to take a neighboring state with 2 units and EVERYONE just HAD to be in on it: it's been more than a couple times. Seriously, some of the fights I see Britain and France in legit aren't worth the skin of their knuckles and I'm just sitting there going "why?!" Sorry. Tangent over.)
I dun quite understand you so I'm asking you if you mean declaring neutrality, which alrd exists?
Is it like in Hoi4 where ww3 happens because something somewhere in africa
I mean your example sounds a bit extreme, but historically is not that far fetched.
I'm pretty sure the seven years war started of as some incident in North America and eventually got France and Britain involved.
France lost, but only ~2 Decades later decided to join the USA in their war for independece and get back at Britain.
And last but not least, one political assasination escalated into WW1.
Grudges were a hell of a drug back then in Europe.
@@tayyikai5470 they mean getting someone else to declare neutrality.
@@tayyikai5470 You can declare neutrality as neither the attacker or defender. I'm referring to the ability of an attacker or defender to request other parties with an interest in the area to declare neutrality. Basically asking everyone else to "stay out of it" lol
Already 50 hours in the game, love it.
Let's try and be positive and encourage the devs. I think Paradox are a great game company, which do not necessarily get everything right first try, but they really stick with it and improve games based on community feedback.
They don't take the easy route and produce very simplistic games, they trust their player base and deliver great games. They've provided a gateway for so many people to enjoy and engage with history, which I can say personally as I've learned about the existence of entire events, empires, religions and cultures from CK, EU4, VIC and HOI. Which has allowed me to search about them and learn even more. Which is fantastic!
The way the investment pool works now I think could be improved. I'd like to see specific interest groups building in your country, kind of like in Vicky 2. With the type of construction influenced by their ideology, wealth, and laws. So even if you implement a public schooling system your religious pops would still build church schools in their most influential states. Or private costly schools used by aristocrats or capitalists.
Totally agree on the former point, I think that’s a really good idea. I think latter point would be better addressed by having interest groups undermine institutions based on how strong opposing groups are in your states and how happy they are. The public schooling and health systems in a lot of countries, even today, are often undermined by wealthy interest groups setting up parallel institutions that draw support and resources away from the public systems, so that could be modelled. Heck in the U.K., we’ve had something like five prime ministers in 100 years from state schools out of… er depends who got sacked this week, I don’t want to give a number.
That'll come with the Ideology update 2 years from now, only $29.99.
watched a couple videos covering this info. Found your coverage the best. You jumped into the actual information quickly without a five or six minute intro ramble. You commented on each upcoming change in an articulate way that explained the idea and then offered reasonable commentary. Thank you for excellent coverage of this important information. Keep up the great work.
For expeditions it wasn't that I found them hard to find, it was that it wasn't worth the effort. I successfully mapped the Congo River and all I got was a small 5 year Prestige buff, the Explorer trait for my General (who already had it hence why he was sent) and some popularity for that same general. It was really disappointing because I like the concept of having to manage Progress and Peril through events.
The main problem with expeditions right now is that, when they fail, the commander and his units become permanently "busy", which makes them useless.
The reverse sway (they need a better name, sounds like a way of undoing an opponent's sway) and and economic system improvements sound nice, I just hope certain bugs are fixed, particularly your commanders being "busy" for the rest of their lives even after an expedition ends.
Gonna keep commenting this exploit until they patch it
Hey guys, are you ever sick of your troops taking weeks or months to reach new front lines in far away places after clearing out a different enemy territory (or if you play prussia and need your troops to travel frontlines A LOT) well try this! -> assign your general to the frontline as you normally would but be sure to assign them on the opposite of what you want them to actually do ie attack for defense.
-> right click the general and click switch order to ___
-> you have invented teleportation.
Also there is an easy way to avoid the american cival war 90% of the time (as Ive had to reset my American campaign a few times due to Russia assisting Mexico in the frontier wars)
-> launch game as America
-> DO NOT unpause, do this from day 1
-> reform gov, kick out planters bring in whigs (intellegencia but I have seen the rural folk want to join it already so I assume the parties can vary) this will actually increase your govt legitimacy, if it lowers it try adding in the industrialists, usually does the trick.
-> stay paused, go to laws, ban slavery. Return to government and either bolster the intellegencia (if thats your goal playthrough since its easy to ride them out from the start) or you can supress the planters. You will have enough authority to do both but you want to save 200 for service taxes as its the most lucrative you can tax.
-> my one addition is that they will BEGIN revolting but it will stall out at like 60% and just hover there until the law passes. If they do not begin supressing them instead of whatever else you were doing.
I now see he talked about this ab a minute after I typed it out for the american comment
I would love to see stockpiles added
Private sector autonomous factory building is a *huge* deal for me.
If they do that I'll probably buy the game.
It's nice to hear that they're actually *listening* to the community with this one.
Same yeah
I get that it's controversial. But warfare has always been one of my least favorite mechanics in PDX games. So I love the fact that it's basically handled by the AI this time around. I hope they don't change it too much. I'd rather micromanage my GDP than my map painting brush.
Skill issue
@@jedidiahbell6296 how? Because some people don't like to micro armies
@@jedidiahbell6296 skill issue
i was hoping for a contextualized hybrid system like imperator...
But whats the point of building up that mega economy? In the Victorian period it was to sustain massive and growing militaries. Arm's races demanded resources and opening of markets to aquire the necessary goods. Japan starts the war in the pacific over getting resources to fuel its military. The whole point is that military is often one of the climaxes alongside revolutions and upheaval (which also often include fighting). So I think people just brushing the miliary aspect of the game aside sucks for the overall historical immersion
I'd like to be able to combine armies. After doing a lot of mobilizations, I end up with lots of generals some with just a few units each. It would be good to consolidate these small armies into larger ones. And with lots of generals, I'm also expending a lot of bureaucracy.
While I definetly agree with you and think that we need a system to assign troops to different armies, I would recomend not getting many generals unless it is necessary. I feel like the only good reason to have a lot of generals is if you got a lot of HQs and especially frontlines. But I feel like there aren't many nations where you actually need to have that many, most of my wars are fought in very few frontlines to justify that.
I like it when you can micromanage your troops and see 3d models of your army moving to enemy territory..
Me too, but I already got Eu4 and HOI4 for that. HOI4 already has a great war mod, and that's the only major war Victoria 3's time period has.
For me the 3d models kinda ruined it, just so weird looking
@@dd7aa i still prefer 3d units.. it feels more immersive
@@endlessthunder6161 i wish they could simulate little tiny armies with Canon fire and explosions
@@dd7aa yes i was hoping for that .. not automatic wars its boring and not immersive at all
I would like them to add certain diplomatic actions, such as influence subjects of another country to rebel, decisions to destabilize other's country economy by taking specific actions, offer other things not just an obligation to a country, for example offer a small peace of land plus a trade agreement to get a strong alliance with a global power, many things can be added in the diplomacy that i would love to have properly develop and balanced
I’m completely fine with not being able to directly control armies (though would still prefer it) but FINALLY atleast being able to control the war plans better I’m completely fine with this seems like a great change and I’m glad paradox is gonna actually work towards improving the title sooner rather than later, we don’t need another imperator where the game eventually became enjoyable but was too late for relevance
The current war system is definitely the worst paradox has implemented. Warfare feels tedious and unrewarding. People can argue as much as they want but this game takes place in WW1, and many nation formables are solely formable through conquest. You NEED to give players more extensive and tactical control of warfare instead of just assigning fronts and watching numbers.
I also feel like it leaves you no agency. Warfare is really just a numbers game, while in Vicky2, ck3, euiv, hoi4 etc. you really have an advantage of maneuvers. You can defeat numerically and even technologically superior enemies with clever movement and tactics.
I love this team! We are in good hands Martin seems super passionate
I kinda like the whole bit where the AI or player can concede the main point to force a peace. Like what’s the point of giving in and throwing in the towel if the enemy gets EVERYTHING they asked for? Like the point of this is to show that the defender is being “reasonable” and conceding one big point to avoid war and secure peace.
Counter to this I think there should be an option for the aggressor to still push for the rest but for more infamy. Because on paper it reads: yeah they gave you the biggest part of the deal and you still want war? You should be able to get the other thing, but also look like a warmonger for it.
Agreed, they should improve on this rather than get rid of it. They're way too comfortable using overly simple changes to things. People come back to play some of their games for thousands of hours because of little systems like this and nuance and complexity. I'm afraid they're trying to design "stupid" games to appeal to a larger market.
Wow. really cool coverage of the news!
Very pleased with their plan. I think the game has really solid mechanics they just need some polish and embellishment. I already think it's fun, but the game will be absolutely amazing in a couple years.
In my experience, when an AI backs down and cedes your primary war goal the truce is not 12 months, but 5 years. 5 years of course is 1/20 of the length for the entire game. This may depend on the what the wargoal is as I don't know for sure, but this was my experience with conquering Utah from Mexico.
edit: Unless if there is another way, I believe it is impossible to truce break.
Your updates are cool. I'm now considering buying it for my birthday this weekend hahaha
The war gameplay part of Victoria 3 feels very rough and rushed. I think Paradox is going to do a major overhal of the war, armies, battles of Victoria 3 later on down the road, despite what they say. Even with the new update to it, it still feels like it isn't complete and rushed. Just my two cents.
Country backing away in diplomatic play wouldn't be so bad if you would get short truce, but you infact get 5 years. Thats why if im attacking a smaller nation i will allways go for the puppet play (unless they are 1 province)
They had to release a game first. Paradox can always come back, and fix things like they always done.
Navies in the Victorian age focused much more on static defensive attack. That should be a much bigger feature if you want to be historical. Look at the Crimea war, the British Navy used coastal bombardment extensively in the Black Sea and the Baltic. Its really only late in the period that WW1 style sea battle thinking came to dominate. It should be a feature to use your nave to go in an destroy ports, and do close legally binding blockades. Neutral countries should be accepting these blockades. Naval warfare is not just raiding, its legal.
Also, Armed Forces should not be unified! In Japan the competition between Navy and Army play an important role. The same is true for Britain, just look at the conflict between them before WW1. Navy and Armies are different and that's an important part of that period.
I'd like to see the corinth canal added like the Panama canal, seems like an obvious omission to me!
Hopefully this includes fix for bugged events like the Mapping the West event in the journal for the United States
I think a good addition to the existing law and government area would be to make it harder to swap some things from one side to another. I feel like going from a monarchy to anything else would radicalize over 90% of the population whether its for or against
@@NotThatJojjo you're absolutely correct. Upon playing some Asain powers ive discovered this as well, I guess you can say my real issue with it is that they made libral countries waaay to willing to be libral. Also they did America dirty with how fucked the scripted civil war is. The southern planters having only like 30% political power in America during this tine period is hilariously dumb. The main point of why the south succeeded was because their economy was BOOMING off the backs of slave ran cotton plantations and in the game thats not represented at all. The slavers arent any richer and even worse the southern states in the US have like 1 or 2 cotton plantations total when in reality the south had cotton growing everywhere and they were prestigious for exactly that.
88 hours in and honestly i had mixed reviews so far. The game has a very solid base, maybe the best any paradox game ever had, but the devs URGENTLY NEED to optimize more the late-game. They have been working with the new clausewitz engine for a beyond reasonable time and should have been able to at least work around the performance issues. Late game lag has been a huge issue since stellaris and they need to better organize the pop system if they wish to solve it.
vicky 2 also has late game lag, seems to be a built in issue with games and a "pop" systems imo
@@BringbackgAmberleafns All PDX games suffer from late game lag. It isn't just the pops. It's just a reflection of how much shit is going on under the hood of these games.
@@BringbackgAmberleafns its not just pops. Its all there other games using the same engine. Just poor performance as the game goes on and this has been an issue for years. Woulda hoped the new games could have at least tried to fix this.
One thing i would LOVE is yo easily see the the financial outcomes of a trade deal
So basically they know they released a product barely beyond alpha stage. Charming.
Thank you paradox 🦐 🦐🦐
Trying to play shewa I have 50 divisions and was losing to 13 and the solution to me being constantly outnumbered was to delete one of my three generals to make the AI rethink stuff somehow and then I instantly encircled and occupied their nation in less than a week, sadly they were still in my capital and I auto-capitulated to them even though I had them encircled and full occupied besides my capital.
For military, I would like to know what is the end state? Where does Paradox want to go? Something approaching EU4 would be the right direction.
What really breaks my immersion is Argentina never expanding into the Tehuelche and random Aboriginal immigration into south america, instead of the historical italian, german and ukrainian migration that never happens when it should have happened
As prussia its SUPER easy to unite Germany and you dont even need to go to war usually, but Italy almost never forms and I haven't yet seen the AI even form NGF let alone Germany, I played a qing game, got to the 1910s and prussia was still a thing, didn't even own Hanover
I hope they fix late game unplayable issue, even I have rtx 2060 + 17-9750h laptop
I’m glad it’s not just me. My specs are getting a bit old but still meet the recommended specs on Steam. I can’t play past 1890 until the game slows to a crawl. Hopefully that gets fixed soon.
I’m sure it will I’d guess they want to add as much as possible before sitting down to reoptimize it all
These all sound really good!
gonna wait til that big change day, sorta what a wholesome experience!
I would say that having a way to automate trade is the most urgent change that needs to happen
I'm liking the look of these ideas, and I think even moreso I'm happy with the way they're presenting them, and the openness in their design philosophy. It's clear that they have a vision for how they want the game to FEEL, and everything they do is in service of that vision. Love it.
I'd love to see an expansion on the relationship between subject and overlord, to make it more interesting to play as a puppet state. At present the only thing you can do is request independence (most likely by force). I want to see the ability to ask for autonomy (especially the ability to make diplomatic plays, something reserved for Dominions), and being able to ask the overlord to transfer territory. In a Canada playthrough, there are only two ways to try getting Newfoundland in the fold: Go independent and then war for conquest, or switch to Britain and release Newfoundland before switching back to Canada (which disables achievements). This would be great playing as a Great Power, too, if for instance you got an event where the Cape Colony asked for the transfer of a neighbouring colonial state, or if the Dutch East India company asked the Netherlands for a share on the spoils in the recent conquest of Brunei. This would all serve the flavour they're going for of making it feel like you're trying to manage a sprawling empire with emerging nationalism.
It'd be nice if you could ally someone and join their war after it had already started, or just join it on your own.
I love this military system alot.
But I wish hardwood, porcine, artillery, guns, and luxury furniture and cloths were made in seperate factories
As a Prussian descendant it is wonderful to recreate my culture. Russia, prepare for your demise!
I still haven’t seen the Confederate States appear once, even when I played the USA and TRIED to trigger it 😭
When the warfare systems work it is great. Unfortunately it doesn't always do that
Blockades would be nice...
Sitting waiting for some wars to end is painful so more passive war score ticks would be brilliant
This is all great and I'm glad they're doing it. But to me this is them FINISHING their game.
Conscripts have a 4 x defensive bonus and a 2x offensive bonus over regulars !
Troop numbers don't matter because of small battle width.
1 battle happens at once.
If you can't place troops it's not grand strategy ut's grand (micro)management.
On the contrary to the dev diary, I find diplomacy really lacking. Even if your an economic behemoth, very difficult to throw your weight around. Being able to peaceably expand and build up a geopolitical bloc is a must - can't be done presently.
My two biggest issue with warfare is the hq system and how battles start. It feels like when not assigned to a front my armies just hibernate in a cave or something. If I’m playing as Spain, and let’s say the US tries to invade Cuba, I can’t send any of troops there until they land on Cuba. And once I kick them out my forces go back to sleep in Spain. It makes defending really annoying, and I think a better option is just allowing troops to move between HQs, but doing so increases infrastructure use if the number of soldiers exceed the amount of barracks
My second issue is that having a ton of armies doesn’t seem to do anything. For instance, if I have a puppet, The AI will send in their units (which have less attack than mine) and during a defense my guys aren’t taking any part in the battle so I lose
the way the map looks and works think it would be very hard to put in moveable vicky 2 style units even if they wanted to do it.
I don't think many people want that, they mostly just want to give direction to the ai in what provinces and direction to advance and have multiple battles along a single front
@@ebarlow4940 True. Would be awesome if I could tell my armies for example to emphasize taking the Rhine area to cut off coal production or focus on taking coastal ports to disrupt their navy. Also naval invasions just don't make sense to me and I'm having a really hard time understanding how to actually make them happen since the enemy can just automatically defend coast. Since its just a frontline no matter where you land there is a battle so you can't do any landings to outflank like say the Japanese did at Hong Kong and Singapore
I do like the war system. Its more hands off, which better fits the economic focus of vicky 3. Its just so opaque and seemly random at what is and isnt possible, or why things are going poorly. Or you know, you have 100 battlions of inrregulars that will only send 2 divisions vs the enemy that has 10 divisions of skirmish infantry.
Ok, paradox really is listening to community after these updates
It's a start, but still far away from the expected state of game that was hyped up
Well hopefully the war rework will give something more to do. I don’t know why I win or lose battles and why do they attack in mountains!
on my second game ever I was able to unite Germany by 1848 and build a 1.5 Billion pound economy by 1900. I am not even good at the game. What I personally disliked is the market. When I am the biggest producer of clothes, why can't I make it cheaper for my pop to raise my standard of living, but instead it is immediately traded away and it stays consistently expensive for my pop. I would like a feature to satiate my own market, and only export the excess. It'd hurt the economy a little bit but raise standard of living more, which was a problem for me in the beginning
I think that ouside of adding micro to war itself, they can make war more meaningful and slightly more interactable with in a different way: by working with the military instead. I think they should just try to strike a balance between war being somewhat unpredictable and chaotic, but something you can affect. They should flesh out the outside-of-actual-war stuff: maybe add more depth to the military systems? Finding some way to model things happening /within/ military culture, and how your country's economics and politics affects the army and its functioning would be cool. More events, decisions, etc too.
I mean, in real life militaries aren't just cookie-cutter and the same. They have different cultural issues, processes, focuses, etc. You don't just Victorian-era-army-with-best-tech it, armies had a lot going on under the surface. Maybe the game should try to model that to some degree. It would go along with the can't-directly-interact-with-it approach too.
Also make everything more transparent and add some stuff that's more direct for the min-maxers/war enjoyers. (Hey, we all need to share this game, so everyone should have get their likes considered)
Only thing I wish was there is being able to limit how many or move the amount of brigades each general has. Also some tool tip on why only some units fight in each better
Other than that I really like it
Navies were critical during this time period and the fact you can't really control naval tactics to have small raiding groups or grand fleets just hurts the experience for me. The flotilla control numbers just seem arbitrary
They have basically NAILED IT with that road map, i can't wait to see those features/changes implemented!
The big historical event that doesn’t happen seems to be the Indian Mutany. At the moment there is no way to bring the East India Company under British control and the Raj just doesn’t seem to happen without a major war. Perhaps something triggered by introducing rifling.
I think they should properly show you who will fight with after u declare the war.
The show u the lets say russia is on your side in the prediction, but then u declare war, the infamy updates and now russia has joined your enemy or just pissed of...
I'm probably going to buy it once paradox fixes some of these things.
If they continue to balance it and make it more realistic and fix their godawful ai, I might just buy this game.
Thank god they are doing some tweaks. I actually like the "hands-off" war-system in principle, but the way the game decides what is and isnt a frontline can be quite wonky. I got especially frustrated when I (as Persia) was fighting a war in Europe and every time two frontlines merged my generals were unassigned and went back to Persia and I had to wait for two months to ship them back to the European theater. That made no sense. Improvements with navy are also very welcome, since they do indeed feel a bit lack-luster. I also think its weird that in battle allies dont fight with each other (I could be wrong but from what I see every battle is 1v1 no matter how many different nations are on a frontline. It at the very least looks that way.)
170 hours played - i have yet to see germany form once lol
same... only 60 hours on my end though, unless i do it, it never happens
I'm 44 hours in. I've seen it form once.
170 hours? it's only been 9 days since release, that's like 226 hours. When do you sleep
@@magica3526 he’s lying or afk the whole time
yeah i think the ai needs railroaded a bit better. they also need to sort the border gore out between canada and the US. it drives my ocd crazy seeing the US-canada border not in a straight line.
Well at least they are recognizing the problems.
But this game still has a long road ahead of it
On the history part: They really need to make it less likely for Sweden to create Scandinavia. Historically Scandinavia never existed as a nation, not really. The cloest we got was the Personal Kalmar Union, and a few others.
The historical way Norway and Sweden should play out is that in 1905 Norway does a diplomatic play for their independence, and Sweden backs down.
So far when playing as Norway I have never made it to the 20th century, always getting the Game Over Screen, unless I rush for independence early on.
I don't mind Scandinavia happening, but it's not fun losing the game without any real warning that you are about to lose. Heck I had an amazing economy, and was gearing up to go to war when I lost.
So, I hope Scandinavian Formation is less likely to happen in the future.
It's a 5 year truce. Real pain
Big oof 😥
It really sucks when you need to take like 7 states from Mexico as USA to complete Manifest Destiny but Mexico keeps just backing down each time making the whole process take like 30 years. Though Mexico does seem more willing to go to actual war if your primary demand is for a state with Gold...
@@JumboPixel Had a game as Brazil where I was going to annex half of Chile and puppet the rest. They backed down, but I got lucky. A war to puppet Paraguay pulled them back in, so I was able to annex everything else I wanted. I'll puppet them later.
A noy so much problem but a ui thing i hope they do is make it easier to see how many good u have or need trading while in the import ot export screen aswell as allowing u to see what u are making in ur nation while in a market so that if u want to split off and go ur own way as say the east indies u can see of u have everything set up to not destroy your economy
Thank god they’re gonna hit the ACW, couldn’t get it to trigger no matter what I did. The south and north never wanted to secede.
every single hardcore vic 3 fans argument about how paradox would never change this war system has perished along with the devblog
I just find it amazing that their plan is "We're going to do what we should have done from the beginning instead of releasing an alpha state game." and we're expected to be grateful they are bothering to finish the work they were paid for in the first place.
Also the clear signs of hubris and lack of willingness to admit they messed up on making the mechanics shallow, RNG dependent, and as devoid of player agency as they could get away with such as 'humble' statements like "While I think what we do have here is *quite good* and **not in need of any significant redisign**..." holy shite, that right there tells you that even though they are changing things, they will die on their hill before they admit that things aren't well done.
yea, there are so many people excusing this game poor state.
We just need that late game lag fixed and I'll be cool with however long the wait for the rest of it is. I mostly like the warfare apart of some weird AI stuff, but I do want less opaqueness to it so I know why certain things are going wrong.
I really like these improvements they are planning, i like victoria 3 war system, of course the changes are nencesary (agency for the player, generals, etc), but the base of it i really like, its different from the other games and have good potential, also all the other changes sound really good, that statement of never taking control out of the player for me particularly its the best, that was one of the things that bothered me the most in victoria 2
After they implement these changes, the game will be perfect.
does anybody else notice the ai specifically colonize where you are colonizing? for example. britain was leaving most of africa alone until i colonized gabon. then they decided they really really wanted gabon. or how in every single game of japan the ai colonizes hokkaido but never do it when playing other nations. in my japan game they colonized it in 1849. in my russia campaign it remained uncolonized at the end of the game
Hope each feature is less than 20$
I subbed after watching first video you made on this game, good effort, good content, good job.
Warfare is the only thorn in a game that is functionally impressive
I want them to fix the late game slowdown, I know they're working on the solution (too many individual pops to keep track of all over the place), but for a nation with a high population it can make the game really tedious after 1900 or so.
I'd also like it if they could make it so that when you're looking at a specific building in the buildings tab and hit the "back" button, it doesn't take you back to the top of the buildings tab list. It's a bit of a pain having to re-scroll down to the specific set of buildings I was looking at so I can look more closely at the next building on the list, and then have to do it again, and again.
Another thing I'd like to see is a way to rebind the keys while in the game. I know you can do it by changing the 'shortcut.shortcut' file in the 'game' folder, but I suspect that's going to break every time they do an update and it'd just be nice to be able to do it in the options menu.
Honestly I just want to see the war system look fun. If that happens, I'll buy this game.
Yeah its not fun lol id wait
I hope they make changes to the central America splinter event because with how it is atm its completely rng as to of i can stop it or not. U can have 10 games where u do the same thing and u win 1 lose all others at random points i had one where country's splintered as soon as i unpaused the game lile how am i supposed to fix the problem if u dont let me
Also I've had multiple games up to 1900 and none have yet to see North Germany or Italy forming at all. Canada and Australia never done it without the British decision prompting them either.
Eu4 was totally different at launch. I like the bones of Victoria 3 way more than I liked imperator.
All of that content will be DLC, enjoy.
This game will die very quickly unless some major improvements are made. War system is horrible. Feels like real scam!
I would really like to see some way of investing in another coutrys industry, i recently did a playtrough of two sicilys as a pacifist industrialistic economy, after a while I obviously started to really crave rubber and oil, so i started to convert some of my industry to use it just to make sure the price was high, the i set up import routes with countrys that had potential for expanding their production. But after waiting for years i realised they werent going to do it i just invaded all of ethiopia, bahrain and the UAE. Which was an easy way of fixing my problem but not how i wanted it
Wait a second, there is an American civil war? In 60hrs of gaming and like 8 playthroughs I haven’t seen a single American civil war.
One thing I really want them to fix is not having Canberra be the capital of New South Wales in *1836* …
I've never seen the US civil war trigger, I have however seen a slave revolt produce a little 3 state nation.
We imperator now lads