Victoria 3

[Tamas]

On issues and such, I was just watching a massive communist rebellion in Austria break out (late 1890s). It covered most of the country and despite the Ottomans joining on the ancien regime's side, as far as I could tell the commies conquered legacy Austria, so then the war between the Austrias ended end... the same old monarchy was left in place.

Except now it is n war with the Ottomans over the wargoal of annexing a parallel Austria that no longer exists...

EDIT: I went back to an autosave to check: the war ended correctly, it's just that that "Communist Austria" had the exact same politics as legacy Austria except for a different monarch, who now leads re-united Austria.

[Tamas]

Also I am noticing my Speed 5 performance falling apart a bit closing in on 1900. I have an Intel 10600K with 24GB RAM and a Nvidia 1660, running Medium graphics on 1080p (which don't seem to make a difference if I put them to high, performance-wise). So not a top of the line system by any means, but not too shabby, all things considered.

[Syt]

On issues and such, I was just watching a massive communist rebellion in Austria break out (late 1890s). It covered most of the country and despite the Ottomans joining on the ancien regime's side, as far as I could tell the commies conquered legacy Austria, so then the war between the Austrias ended end... the same old monarchy was left in place.

Except now it is n war with the Ottomans over the wargoal of annexing a parallel Austria that no longer exists...

EDIT: I went back to an autosave to check: the war ended correctly, it's just that that "Communist Austria" had the exact same politics as legacy Austria except for a different monarch, who now leads re-united Austria.

Eh, it's like the Allies partionaing Germany in HOI4, creating 3x the GDR, and leaving a small remnant Reich with Hitler still in charge.

[Tamas]

Browsing the Paradox forums, as usual its largely filled by people not liking it (since those liking it are more busy playing), and their criticism boils down to (rather directly) that it is not Victoria 2.

Now, that is I guess a valid point (except they could just play Vicky 2 then), but it is interesting just how much nostalgia (and to be fair, 10 years of modding blurring memories) can cloud things. Victoria 2 was nice because it was the only 19th century grand strategy game. It was broken on a myriad of levels both as a game and as a simulation. Victoria 3 has plenty to improve but it is already significantly better (as a game and as a simulation) than Vicky 2 ever was.

[Josephus]

Andy's Take has created a 2 hour tutorial video:

Strongtly recommend this. Half an hour in, and have learned more than an hour into the tutorial.

[Tamas]

Interesting, I unified Scandinavia (peacefully, nobody came to Denmark's aid in the Play so they folded eventually) in 1907.

Shortly after a big movement started to get parliamentary democracy instead of the const. monarchy I have been having. Seeing high support and high radicalism, and having 3rd of my population already radical, I figured why not, there was an 80% chance of passing it.

Almost immediately of starting the attempt, an other movement sprung up of people wanting to preserve the monarchy, also quite strong. Neat.

I have also got rid of the uppity North Germans in Holstein when they wanted to rebel I just caved in. Perhaps it was them leaving, but it seems the pendulum has swung toward the monarchists. The support on the democratic movement is down to Medium, the success chance of enacting democracy is down to 56%, but because of the monarchists I am running toward a revolution, it may trigger before I can even make my first 56% roll.

I think I am going to fold and cancel the attempt to democratise. That would be the reasonable thing to do but I am going to see how revolutions go down instead.

[Tamas]

Ok so you should not back down from a diplomatic play against your own secessionists - because if you do the secession effect remains listed in your government tab (can't tell if it still has an effect somewhere or not) but you cannot do anything about it anymore and the seccessionists become an independent country named "XY Rebels" instead of forming some actual country or joining one.

This, and wars not auto-ending when the only possible wargoal (annexing a rebel entity) has been made impossible (by the rebel entity no longer existing) should get a hotfix, really.

[Syt]

Browsing the Paradox forums, as usual its largely filled by people not liking it (since those liking it are more busy playing), and their criticism boils down to (rather directly) that it is not Victoria 2.

Now, that is I guess a valid point (except they could just play Vicky 2 then), but it is interesting just how much nostalgia (and to be fair, 10 years of modding blurring memories) can cloud things. Victoria 2 was nice because it was the only 19th century grand strategy game. It was broken on a myriad of levels both as a game and as a simulation. Victoria 3 has plenty to improve but it is already significantly better (as a game and as a simulation) than Vicky 2 ever was.

Yeah, and it leaves me unsure what to make of the complaints about "broken" warfare. I've not dabbled much in it yet, but I check in on AI wars and battles and things seem quite reasonable as far as I can tell.

Complaints about the general not using the right troops, exhausted troops etc. - is it because the system is broken, or because the general is shit? Plenty examples of really shitty generals in this time period that left political leaders exacerbated (Lincoln would understand). If it's WAD there should be more visibility for the player, though, and how to address it.

In cases where a larger force struggles against a smaller one - what are the battle modifiers? How good are the leaders? Does the player have a bigger force, but haven't updated the equipment or made sure to have munitions supplies?

I especially loved complaints from someone who got UK to join a war on their side by promising access to another nation's market ... and was then pissed that the war didn't end before that stipulation was resolved as well (I had the same with UK yesterday in Africa ... was annoyed at first, but then thought, "No, this makes sense; I promised them.").

In short, I wonder how much of this is players having to learn what's happening in game and how much is really in need of fixing.

[Syt]

Also, the game keeps schooling me on lesser knwon names from the era. Watching Austria fight Prussia I came across this guy whose name does not sound Austrian but rather kike a made up meme character.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval_Nugent_von_Westmeath

(He was probably in V2, but the game was big on randomized characters, IIRC, and I rarely paid attention to its names.)

[FunkMonk]

Took me 30 minutes and I had this game figured out without the tutorial, so try again. Boring as heck unless I go looking for things to break!

Wow, 200 IQ geniuses in the Paradox forum already figured the game out in no time! It's boring! Need old school warfare ASAP to fix this boring game!!!

[Tamas]

In short, I wonder how much of this is players having to learn what's happening in game and how much is really in need of fixing.

I think most of it is them having to learn, I just hope they won't make the marketing/business end of Paradox force a change in the meantime.

This reaction used to happen like clockwork on EU4 when I was still paying attention. A major patch would come out introducing/rewiring things and the forum would explode in temper tantrums as the optimal moves in people's muscle-memories weren't so optimal anymore. They denounced everything as broken etc just like they do know. Then fast forward a year, the next big change(s) come out, and the same mechanics that were deemed the death of the game would be defended as crucial to preserve its spirit, as people rallied against the newest re-balance of them.

I have only had my one war with this civil war so far and it was quirky but not because of the military mechanics, strictly speaking. I MUCH prefer this approach than the whack-a-stack gameplay of chasing the AI up and down the map every war.

[Tamas]

Took me 30 minutes and I had this game figured out without the tutorial, so try again. Boring as heck unless I go looking for things to break!

Wow, 200 IQ geniuses in the Paradox forum already figured the game out in no time! It's boring! Need old school warfare ASAP to fix this boring game!!!

   yeah there are some choice posts in there now. My favourite was "I see what trade good missing, I build factory, there is nothing else to the game!"

[FunkMonk]

My respect for the game that Paradox designed is increasing with every whiny, cringe-inducing post from so-called hardcore high-APM gamerz.

Politics and economy are boring!!! Where my army men??????

[Syt]

I have only had my one war with this civil war so far and it was quirky but not because of the military mechanics, strictly speaking. I MUCH prefer this approach than the whack-a-stack gameplay of chasing the AI up and down the map every war.

Having spent a lot of time in the last two weeks chasing armies in CK3, I agree. Love the game, but warfare is its weakest part. (At least in CK3 the number of stacks remains manageable, at least till late game when you have hundreds of thousands of men under arms and have to keep them split because attrition is eating you alive)

[Syt]

My respect for the game that Paradox designed is increasing with every whiny, cringe-inducing post from so-called hardcore high-APM gamerz.

Politics and economy are boring!!! Where my army men??????

This guy on the HOI reddit has the right idea. Uses a crayon map texture and a unit mod to make them look more like toy soldiers.



Link to the map mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2191305243

Love the whale.