Yeah, all this war goal system is rather rough. Just yesterday I had a war with Brazil in state of Civil War to conquer couple of states. I thought that was smart, but after their uprising won, all my demands became invalid. So I just fought remaining of the war where I can't get anything at all.
Regarding The Great War - I'm not sure how to fix it. It's as if we need to be able to add demands during war or a peace conference, with infamy gains decreased the bigger scale of the war was.
> It's as if we need to be able to add demands during war or a peace conference
We need periodic 're-assessment of goals' meetings. Let's say one pops up every year feels about right. Each re-assessment allows those involved in the war to add more war goals for less infamy, scaling with casualties. The longer and bloodier the war goes, the more goals can potentially be added.
So in a 4 years long war, more goals from each side gets tacked on.
What starts as a war over one province, ends up becoming a punitive treaty asking for the dismantling of someone's colonial empire. That's how we get WW1 in a natural way.
As the defensive bonuses get larger, the wars take longer and the casualties get higher, and the longer the wars take the more countries demand from one another when they win.
To truly model WW1, each of these re-assessment meetings should also allow for countries to join the war on either side, or *for countries to switch sides*.
As it currently stands there's no room for late joiners like USA and Italy did historically, which means we'll never get a war that gradually drags the whole world into it as the stakes get higher. The current system always has a few superpowers sitting it out and never having the opportunity to jump in.
This would also help to make everyone stay fighting until their country is destroyed—if you surrender you stand to lose a lot, so might as well fight to the last man.
Switching sides would have to be carefully balanced though, so I understand why Paradox Games are reluctant to ever try to emulate such a thing. If the conditions to allow it are too tricky and complicated, it’s practically useless. If it’s too easy, it becomes easy for the player to abuse and frustrating when the AI weasels out of losing land.
Ultimately such a thing sort of mandates a ‘Human Element’, ie the notion that all parties involved stand to gain something and that the ‘Humans’ on the one side are willing to concede/lessen their gains collectively in order to ensure victory. When only one human is involved on only one side, it’s very hard to emulate this under an AI Acceptance Value.
Yea for these reasons imo the devs shouldnt even bother. It can only lead to player frustration or exploits. Imagine a scenario where ur grinding in france as germany for alsace lorraine with austria at your side and austria flips to their side opening a massive front and then france flips to your side invalidating your wargoal. I cant see a solution that could prevent things like this from happening
I think EU4’s system works pretty well. Start out with a primary demand, and that is your wargoal, which greatly effects warscore (or war support in Vic 3).
In the peace treaty, however, you can throw whatever you want on there. Not even required to include the primary demand.
Also in EU4, great powers can intervene in wars after they start.
I think V3 would benefit greatly from just copy-pasting this system in. I do like the build-up to war with mobilization and the option to back down tho.
Yep, also throw administrative efficiency and absolutism into the mix, i don't know which one affects war score cost. Those 17th century gains are insane, and for balancing add a linearly increasing cap on how much infamy the AI is comfortable catching in a peace treaty. The longer the war drags on, the more it is willing to eat big - and will subsequently be gutted for it.
Y’all shadow boxing a dlc that doesn’t even exist yet
Anyways paradox has included barebones core feature in the free base game update for awhile now. I hate their dlc policy too but at least hate the things they are already doing instead of speculating on the next shitty thing they’re doing in your mind
You have short memory, in one of the last progress report they promised the dlc were to be only cosmetic and flavour, game mechanics were to only be added in patches. The promise lasted 1 DLC
Are you capable of reading?
These days (for PDX's newer releases at least) the core/basic game functions get released with the free update while flavor/customization gets locked behind the actual DLC.
Actually, I have a question, since I haven’t really been paying attention due to school, but was the spheres of influence mechanic part of the free update for vic3? Cause that’s one of my favourite mechanics in vic2 and I was surprised it wasn’t in vic3 from day 1.
They are but they're more limited in the free update. I think you can select a country that already has a power bloc and play from there, but can't form a new bloc.
You can select any country that has a bloc and keep using that bloc, but if you want to make your own bloc you can only make a Trade League without the DLC. That's still most of the functionality available for free tbh.
So you pay the full price for a skeleton of a game, and then you maybe get some basic features for free 2 years later, if you're lucky, they might work as intended.
If the value proposition doesn't appeal to you then don't buy the games.
I've gotten my money's worth on every Paradox game I have bought, and they have all needed time to bake & reach their potential.
Gone are the days where gamers relied on their unwilling parents to make 30-60 game purchases for their kids. Those kids are now working aged adults and those game companies are going to exploit that demographic to the fullest extent.
Naw, he’s right. Paradox’s DLC policy used to be extremely predatory. I remember when you straight up could not enjoy EU4 without art of war.
Now they’ve done a good job of adding flavor in DLC, arguably making them overpriced, and keeping core mechanics in the free update. Vic 3 literally every other major update is free.
Regardless if you think these mechanics should’ve been in the game from release, they can’t just churn out free updates for years without making any money.
> I remember when you straight up could not enjoy EU4 without art of war.
fun fact, art of war came out in august of 2014, almost a decade ago. when did i get so old 💀
lmao those were the days right! EU4 came out my freshman year of college, it's kinda funny to think how much I enjoyed it and its first few expansions when it is so shit compared to the game today
What’s wild is I barely play it anymore, I don’t enjoy it as much, despite me absolutely agreeing it’s 10x better than it ever was when I played religiously. I have 8,000 hours cause I would play it until I went to bed and just never exited out of it 😂
EU4 is actually why I have serious hope for Vic3, they seriously turned that game around and made it a beast
Really? I’ve experienced the opposite, I’ll be fighting a war in the new patch and if a civil war starts I’ll be intently at war w the civil war if they contain any of my war goals, and only for those war goals, makes it a lot more fun imo
Dude, tell me about it. I had an ai ally take a white peace when the enemies capital was occupied and we were literally like two weeks from complete victory. I reloaded and ran it back because I was so livid lol
I was not a negotiating partner. I joined in order to help their rebellion so that I could make them a protectorate after they were freed from Japan. I don’t remember what they offered me directly lol
You got swayed on the premise of them becoming your protectorate? As soon as the war is over, they're your subject assuming they still exist, no matter how bad the war goes.
No, I got swayed with something i don’t remember.
The imperialist in me joined because I wanted all those sweet rubber plots to no longer be held directly by a great power so I could swoop in and civilize them myself afterwards. They never offered to be a protectorate, I doubt they would have been super excited had they known that was the plan lol :p
Also dynamically add war goals as the war goes on. After one million dead, we will no longer settle for war reparations; we want to make sure this country can't attack us ever again.
If at the end of WW1 Entente had the same goals as in the beginning, all that would change is Alsace–Lorraine going to France and a few colonies going to Britain. The whole war would've been even more pointless than it really was.
This only shows how flawed is the late-game war system.
Edit: I screwed up grammatically while writing this comment somehow
I don't think UK would even get anything. Germany would have used the button that almost never gets used (Is it even still in the game?) to violate their sovereignty for military access and UK with its guarantee of Belgium's independence would have defensively joined. Not to mention it's impossible to join a war for wargoals after it has already started. I think the whole escalation system actually needs to remain for the whole war, with some manuever points regenerating.
And Serbia getting the balkans and Italy getting Trento and Trieste and Romania getting Transylvania and Poland getting their stuff and Czechoslovakia existing and all the stuff in the middle east and Russia got peaced out mid-war while the Ottomans and Bulgaria joined mid-war.
It's truly baffling to me that this wasn't in the game from launch. Having the feeling of post-war negotiations will elevate the RP factor so much. Hell I'd love to see that as a specific system too. Give us the ability to add war goals, and to conduct post-war negotiations that's based on the opinion your allies have of you, your infamy, how much you're screwing them over, when you're giving yourself too much power. Some real balance of power in Europe stuff. I'd love that.
A conference type wargoal that is added automatically if more than 2 GP's enter a war would be better and more accurate. If all of europe was a battlefield then there should be a conference after the war were you can press wargoals that could then pitentially spiral down into another war with the other victors if your demands are too much
Beyond that, as a war drags on I feel like you should be able to make demands. Like a quick colonial conflict that sprawls into a 5 year long slug fest and only changes a minor colonial border is just dissatisfying.
Why less infamy though? You can do a lot of stuff with no or low infamy hits. I mean most of the gains in WW1 were in Africa where infamy hits are low because colonies. The rest were just liberating states, subjects and such, war reparations, political changes, etc.
>I mean most of the gains in WW1 were in Africa where infamy hits are low because colonies.
Infamy hits are some of the highest in Africa.. Puppetting Sokoto alone is like 30+ infamy. It's easier to puppet Belgium or Denmark than it is Sokoto.
Man, they should take cues from victoria 2 and their mods. Dismantle nation should be a thing, as well as really reduced infamy and manuever costs .
It’s most likely going to be dlc though, but if I had to guess the war goals will be free but the military alliance systems will be the paid portion lol
Yeah i liked Viccy2's "great war" feature which would unlock after someone had a specific tech. Ended up wiping out entire empires, and players could select what colonies etc they took
I maintain it's still the one thing that makes Victoria 2 better than Victoria 3. If they can get a good modeling of WW1 into Victoria 3, I'd never touch Vicky2 again, because I much prefer the factory and economic micromanagement of Victoria 3, as well as not having to play rebellion wack-a-mole.
I think the formable colony states in Africa was supposed to support carving out chunks of an empire, but personally I've never found much merit in forming them in the first place.
With the new SoI update I’ve started using them more. It’s probably not advantageous but I like having my colonial spherelings where I come in and build up all the natural resources with foreign investment. Simplifies production method management too
With foreign investment I’ve started using the colonial administration. I really haven’t noticed much of a difference other than their SoL grows faster, just not as high.
Due to most pops being discriminated in colonial administrations, they have lower pay which leaves significantly more profits to be collected by your owner pops in your country.
Now with the new migration changes I form them so their pops don't all move to my homeland, I need them to stay until I can build rubber plantations or mines.
I don't see a point in a condensed "dismantle nation" button. It would be a lot more natural and more predictable if you yourself could choose what to dismantle off.
And actual nationalism and stuff so you have ethnic uprisings during such harsh times..
Maybe when a great war is triggered, the war goal will be capitulation. After the capitulation, the winning nations get to handle how they treat the losers.
It would be basically be a versailles treaty update lol
I see no reason why such mechanic should be gated behind a great war, actual peacedeals should 100% be a regular thing for every war. Apart from the forced capitulation.
Wargoals being set in stone pre-war and you NEVER get a chance to set wargoals according to the situation is so laughably stupid. I really hope we'll get actual peacedeals semi-soon instead of these diplomatic plays where everything is kinda awkward.
R5: I'm playing as USA and for the first time ever, it feels like a real WW1 is beginning, as Russia, and Austria face down against North Germany, Belgium, USA, and Turkey. However, the demands in this war are stupid light.
One the one hand, Russia's side wants the Belgian puppet of Prussia (Schleswig-Holstien really, but go with it) to be transferred to Russia, and for Bohemia to be returned to Austria.
On the other hand, the Belgian side wants the Russian puppet of Denmark to be handed over to Begium, and for Alaska to be given to America.
Hundreds of thousands if not millions will die in this war over those terms, and it may very well end in white peace. And the people are fine with this
This game's diplomacy system is still trash, and will be until they allow war goals to escalate more before, and during, the war. It's stupid to see such major wars fought over nothing.
It's especially frustrating in the current patch with how aggressive the AI is over petty and inconsequential things. The great powers will intervene at the drop of a hat for a treaty port, fight for ten years, cost millions of lives sink their economies, and then immediately do it again.
Slight tangent, but what is the mostly red flag? From context I'm assuming it's you as the USA, but what abomination of a government generates whatever flag that is?
The lack of war goals is laughable, and there really should be peace conferences. But even without war goals it can be interesting to go to war for diplomatic reasons, and to be able to add devastation and kill the population of a rival. Occupation should be part of this but afaik it's pretty tame at the moment.
Man I also hate how limited the Dip plays are i. scope. Dip plays should have intensities - going from stuff like regional conflicts to international crises. How they determine severity can be from a combination of the participants, the GDP of the areas at stake, etc. The greater the conflict, the more maneuvers become available. In the case of an international crisis, which is the most intense version of a dip play, all GPs are dragged similar to how Vic 2 does, and failure to resolve the crisis diplomatically results in a Great War, where every participant has their own full set of maneuvers to use instead of sharing from a pool. Then, peace conferences should be a thing that enforces all the demands from the maneuvers depending on how badly one side lose. That way the stakes are way bigger
I think the game should quantify what intensity of conflict it was. If small colonies are the focus of the war, taking incorporated land should be extremely difficult. If there's a small scale border skirmish that doesn't escalate, then the province should be split, or a split province taken. If that border skirmish escalates, or if the war goals are large to start with, then it's a full-scale war.
Peace deals need to be totally reworked. You should be able to add war goals while offering peace. Your additional maneuvers are calculated based on casualties, duration, and devastation. (Germany won the Franco-Prussian war very quickly, they don't get to do much more than a quick partial occupation. Germany lost WW2, so it's divided and puppeted.) The opposing side can deny peace offers just like now, but it takes a war support hit if the population considers the peace offer favorable. *Offering* a harsh peace deal gives you a slight infamy hit, and other countries have the option to get involved under certain conditions. (If I'm winning an escalated border conflict, the world won't bat an eye when I ask for that province, but if I demand half of China, then they may choose to get involved to stop me.) Peace deals should be offered strategically, and only denied if they're unacceptable.
I can never accept the fact that nations can't join after war breaks out, not just ahistorical but also unfun, truly one of the worst decisions they made
they need to basically do the crisis system from Vic2 i feel for great wars, and if a war boils over into a *great war* then it starts a new "Great Diplo Play" where new specialised demands can be made as the war is on-going, makes demands more dynamic (as they should be) and can make wars go on longer and be more life or death instead of losing and then just being humiliated
We straight up need a "Great War" system as a new mechanic. Someone made a post about it here a short while ago. If more than 5-6 Great Powers join in on a diplomatic play, it should have a chance to escalate into a "World War". Where infamy penalties are less and there are much more maneuvers to use, from every great power involved.
I don't even care if it makes the game / certain countries snowball or progress too fast, it can be balanced one way or another. But the game is direly missing some huge wars with *real* stakes.
Maybe it could be restricted to only happen after 1918 or so, for the late game moments.
what we need is a expansion update centred around war. Some mechanics to reduce the scale of war in the early game and some grand war mechanic after 1900 creating some really nice large and horrifying wars which lets entire economies shatter
Schleswig-Holstein rebelled against Scandinavia and managed to fight off the landing attempts, then Schleswig-Holstein decided to call itself Prussia, since normal Prussia had already become North Germany by then.
Update: We won the war, lots of people died, and Russia is still a massive power, so is Austria. But hey, we got Denmark and Alaska. That’s what your husbands, sons, and brothers died for.
I've seen the AI going hard recently, taking like 6 states and a bunch of other stuff. I think they're just scared of infamy though. The game isn't built for a WW1 redrawing of Europe, you can't cede territory to existing countries and it potentially costs you 35 infamy per state you take
Irl powers will have reasons for going to war but what actually gets decided in the peace deal is much different hoi4 does a much better job at realizing this. I’m not advocating for copy and pasting hois peace deal system mind you it has its own issues in its own game that would be seen twice as worse in Vicky. But I think being able to add and remove war goals as the war is happening and maybe having an actual peace conference where nations can again add or remove war goals would help. Also infamy gains for wars are much to high in some cases and there’s still no real Great War system. I almost never see great wars happen in my games it’s usually all the powers jumping one nation who got out of hand. This makes sense for the 1800s but by the 1900s the balance of power should already have shifted far too much for this to be the case.
TLDR: the peace deal and war goal system suck hoi does it better but not perfect and there needs to be a rework.
Realistically speaking, ww1 could probably look like several wars involving each of the involved great powers and even then Vic3 doesn’t really model that type of warfare well. I’m here hoping for hoi5 to start 1910 and to go up to 1960 or something, probably the best solution for ww1 in a paradox game
Yeah, all this war goal system is rather rough. Just yesterday I had a war with Brazil in state of Civil War to conquer couple of states. I thought that was smart, but after their uprising won, all my demands became invalid. So I just fought remaining of the war where I can't get anything at all. Regarding The Great War - I'm not sure how to fix it. It's as if we need to be able to add demands during war or a peace conference, with infamy gains decreased the bigger scale of the war was.
> It's as if we need to be able to add demands during war or a peace conference We need periodic 're-assessment of goals' meetings. Let's say one pops up every year feels about right. Each re-assessment allows those involved in the war to add more war goals for less infamy, scaling with casualties. The longer and bloodier the war goes, the more goals can potentially be added. So in a 4 years long war, more goals from each side gets tacked on. What starts as a war over one province, ends up becoming a punitive treaty asking for the dismantling of someone's colonial empire. That's how we get WW1 in a natural way. As the defensive bonuses get larger, the wars take longer and the casualties get higher, and the longer the wars take the more countries demand from one another when they win. To truly model WW1, each of these re-assessment meetings should also allow for countries to join the war on either side, or *for countries to switch sides*. As it currently stands there's no room for late joiners like USA and Italy did historically, which means we'll never get a war that gradually drags the whole world into it as the stakes get higher. The current system always has a few superpowers sitting it out and never having the opportunity to jump in.
This would also help to make everyone stay fighting until their country is destroyed—if you surrender you stand to lose a lot, so might as well fight to the last man.
Wouldn't it be the opposite? You want to end the war quick because the longer it goes the more wargoals will be added, the more you'll lose
Switching sides would have to be carefully balanced though, so I understand why Paradox Games are reluctant to ever try to emulate such a thing. If the conditions to allow it are too tricky and complicated, it’s practically useless. If it’s too easy, it becomes easy for the player to abuse and frustrating when the AI weasels out of losing land. Ultimately such a thing sort of mandates a ‘Human Element’, ie the notion that all parties involved stand to gain something and that the ‘Humans’ on the one side are willing to concede/lessen their gains collectively in order to ensure victory. When only one human is involved on only one side, it’s very hard to emulate this under an AI Acceptance Value.
Yea for these reasons imo the devs shouldnt even bother. It can only lead to player frustration or exploits. Imagine a scenario where ur grinding in france as germany for alsace lorraine with austria at your side and austria flips to their side opening a massive front and then france flips to your side invalidating your wargoal. I cant see a solution that could prevent things like this from happening
And then paradox players wonder why the player rarely looked and the game is "easy"
I think EU4’s system works pretty well. Start out with a primary demand, and that is your wargoal, which greatly effects warscore (or war support in Vic 3). In the peace treaty, however, you can throw whatever you want on there. Not even required to include the primary demand. Also in EU4, great powers can intervene in wars after they start. I think V3 would benefit greatly from just copy-pasting this system in. I do like the build-up to war with mobilization and the option to back down tho.
Yep, also throw administrative efficiency and absolutism into the mix, i don't know which one affects war score cost. Those 17th century gains are insane, and for balancing add a linearly increasing cap on how much infamy the AI is comfortable catching in a peace treaty. The longer the war drags on, the more it is willing to eat big - and will subsequently be gutted for it.
I can assure you, that is well saved for a nice $30 DLC
Y’all shadow boxing a dlc that doesn’t even exist yet Anyways paradox has included barebones core feature in the free base game update for awhile now. I hate their dlc policy too but at least hate the things they are already doing instead of speculating on the next shitty thing they’re doing in your mind
You have short memory, in one of the last progress report they promised the dlc were to be only cosmetic and flavour, game mechanics were to only be added in patches. The promise lasted 1 DLC
Meatriding a company that consistently releases basic game functions behind a $30 paywall is wild
Are you capable of reading? These days (for PDX's newer releases at least) the core/basic game functions get released with the free update while flavor/customization gets locked behind the actual DLC.
Actually, I have a question, since I haven’t really been paying attention due to school, but was the spheres of influence mechanic part of the free update for vic3? Cause that’s one of my favourite mechanics in vic2 and I was surprised it wasn’t in vic3 from day 1.
Spheres of influence aren't in Victoria 3 the same way they are Victoria 2.
They are but they're more limited in the free update. I think you can select a country that already has a power bloc and play from there, but can't form a new bloc.
You can select any country that has a bloc and keep using that bloc, but if you want to make your own bloc you can only make a Trade League without the DLC. That's still most of the functionality available for free tbh.
What functions mate? The countries on the map? Improving relations? You'd hope those are in the base game.
The guy you are replying to is talking about the free updates that come with the DLCs, not the base game at launch.
So you pay the full price for a skeleton of a game, and then you maybe get some basic features for free 2 years later, if you're lucky, they might work as intended.
If the value proposition doesn't appeal to you then don't buy the games. I've gotten my money's worth on every Paradox game I have bought, and they have all needed time to bake & reach their potential.
if you're so upset about this game and people enjoying it, maybe you shouldnt be on a subreddit dedicated to said game. just a thought
Gone are the days where gamers relied on their unwilling parents to make 30-60 game purchases for their kids. Those kids are now working aged adults and those game companies are going to exploit that demographic to the fullest extent.
calm down johan
Naw, he’s right. Paradox’s DLC policy used to be extremely predatory. I remember when you straight up could not enjoy EU4 without art of war. Now they’ve done a good job of adding flavor in DLC, arguably making them overpriced, and keeping core mechanics in the free update. Vic 3 literally every other major update is free. Regardless if you think these mechanics should’ve been in the game from release, they can’t just churn out free updates for years without making any money.
> I remember when you straight up could not enjoy EU4 without art of war. fun fact, art of war came out in august of 2014, almost a decade ago. when did i get so old 💀
I was in high school 😭 no need to make me feel old
lmao those were the days right! EU4 came out my freshman year of college, it's kinda funny to think how much I enjoyed it and its first few expansions when it is so shit compared to the game today
What’s wild is I barely play it anymore, I don’t enjoy it as much, despite me absolutely agreeing it’s 10x better than it ever was when I played religiously. I have 8,000 hours cause I would play it until I went to bed and just never exited out of it 😂 EU4 is actually why I have serious hope for Vic3, they seriously turned that game around and made it a beast
Man, is it really *speculation* at this point? It's pretty clearly a pattern.
fellow joeyy fan spotted?
That's why we have Turkish and Russian tutorial videos
Really? I’ve experienced the opposite, I’ll be fighting a war in the new patch and if a civil war starts I’ll be intently at war w the civil war if they contain any of my war goals, and only for those war goals, makes it a lot more fun imo
The lack of war goals is an issue, but the AI’s willingness to take white peaces is too.
Dude, tell me about it. I had an ai ally take a white peace when the enemies capital was occupied and we were literally like two weeks from complete victory. I reloaded and ran it back because I was so livid lol
If you're a negotiating partner, you can indicate your rejection of that peace proposal.
I was not a negotiating partner. I joined in order to help their rebellion so that I could make them a protectorate after they were freed from Japan. I don’t remember what they offered me directly lol
You got swayed on the premise of them becoming your protectorate? As soon as the war is over, they're your subject assuming they still exist, no matter how bad the war goes.
No, I got swayed with something i don’t remember. The imperialist in me joined because I wanted all those sweet rubber plots to no longer be held directly by a great power so I could swoop in and civilize them myself afterwards. They never offered to be a protectorate, I doubt they would have been super excited had they known that was the plan lol :p
Perhaps you could add a "escalation" system, where as more participants join the infamy cost to make demands is lower and you get more maneuvers
Also dynamically add war goals as the war goes on. After one million dead, we will no longer settle for war reparations; we want to make sure this country can't attack us ever again.
If at the end of WW1 Entente had the same goals as in the beginning, all that would change is Alsace–Lorraine going to France and a few colonies going to Britain. The whole war would've been even more pointless than it really was. This only shows how flawed is the late-game war system. Edit: I screwed up grammatically while writing this comment somehow
I don't think UK would even get anything. Germany would have used the button that almost never gets used (Is it even still in the game?) to violate their sovereignty for military access and UK with its guarantee of Belgium's independence would have defensively joined. Not to mention it's impossible to join a war for wargoals after it has already started. I think the whole escalation system actually needs to remain for the whole war, with some manuever points regenerating.
And Serbia getting the balkans and Italy getting Trento and Trieste and Romania getting Transylvania and Poland getting their stuff and Czechoslovakia existing and all the stuff in the middle east and Russia got peaced out mid-war while the Ottomans and Bulgaria joined mid-war.
Except for Serbia, none of those countries would be in a Vic 3 style ww1, b/c they all joined later in the war.
It's truly baffling to me that this wasn't in the game from launch. Having the feeling of post-war negotiations will elevate the RP factor so much. Hell I'd love to see that as a specific system too. Give us the ability to add war goals, and to conduct post-war negotiations that's based on the opinion your allies have of you, your infamy, how much you're screwing them over, when you're giving yourself too much power. Some real balance of power in Europe stuff. I'd love that.
A conference type wargoal that is added automatically if more than 2 GP's enter a war would be better and more accurate. If all of europe was a battlefield then there should be a conference after the war were you can press wargoals that could then pitentially spiral down into another war with the other victors if your demands are too much
Beyond that, as a war drags on I feel like you should be able to make demands. Like a quick colonial conflict that sprawls into a 5 year long slug fest and only changes a minor colonial border is just dissatisfying.
Why less infamy though? You can do a lot of stuff with no or low infamy hits. I mean most of the gains in WW1 were in Africa where infamy hits are low because colonies. The rest were just liberating states, subjects and such, war reparations, political changes, etc.
>I mean most of the gains in WW1 were in Africa where infamy hits are low because colonies. Infamy hits are some of the highest in Africa.. Puppetting Sokoto alone is like 30+ infamy. It's easier to puppet Belgium or Denmark than it is Sokoto.
Man, they should take cues from victoria 2 and their mods. Dismantle nation should be a thing, as well as really reduced infamy and manuever costs . It’s most likely going to be dlc though, but if I had to guess the war goals will be free but the military alliance systems will be the paid portion lol
Yeah i liked Viccy2's "great war" feature which would unlock after someone had a specific tech. Ended up wiping out entire empires, and players could select what colonies etc they took
I maintain it's still the one thing that makes Victoria 2 better than Victoria 3. If they can get a good modeling of WW1 into Victoria 3, I'd never touch Vicky2 again, because I much prefer the factory and economic micromanagement of Victoria 3, as well as not having to play rebellion wack-a-mole.
I think the formable colony states in Africa was supposed to support carving out chunks of an empire, but personally I've never found much merit in forming them in the first place.
With the new SoI update I’ve started using them more. It’s probably not advantageous but I like having my colonial spherelings where I come in and build up all the natural resources with foreign investment. Simplifies production method management too
With foreign investment I’ve started using the colonial administration. I really haven’t noticed much of a difference other than their SoL grows faster, just not as high.
Due to most pops being discriminated in colonial administrations, they have lower pay which leaves significantly more profits to be collected by your owner pops in your country.
Now with the new migration changes I form them so their pops don't all move to my homeland, I need them to stay until I can build rubber plantations or mines.
Maybe a interesting one would be the bigger then war the bigger the maneuver discount.
Or just a bonus to number of maneuvers. The bigger thing would be an infamy discount so people could actually use their maneuvers impactfully.
I don't see a point in a condensed "dismantle nation" button. It would be a lot more natural and more predictable if you yourself could choose what to dismantle off. And actual nationalism and stuff so you have ethnic uprisings during such harsh times..
Maybe when a great war is triggered, the war goal will be capitulation. After the capitulation, the winning nations get to handle how they treat the losers. It would be basically be a versailles treaty update lol
I see no reason why such mechanic should be gated behind a great war, actual peacedeals should 100% be a regular thing for every war. Apart from the forced capitulation.
Wargoals being set in stone pre-war and you NEVER get a chance to set wargoals according to the situation is so laughably stupid. I really hope we'll get actual peacedeals semi-soon instead of these diplomatic plays where everything is kinda awkward.
If the brazillians devestated my country, inflicted millions of casualties, and caused a great war, can I have 3 more states?
If you can actually get those states or brazil is so utterly devestated and exhousted, why not?
Exactly, it should be an initial Casus Belli system followed by an armistice/peace negotiation system
R5: I'm playing as USA and for the first time ever, it feels like a real WW1 is beginning, as Russia, and Austria face down against North Germany, Belgium, USA, and Turkey. However, the demands in this war are stupid light. One the one hand, Russia's side wants the Belgian puppet of Prussia (Schleswig-Holstien really, but go with it) to be transferred to Russia, and for Bohemia to be returned to Austria. On the other hand, the Belgian side wants the Russian puppet of Denmark to be handed over to Begium, and for Alaska to be given to America. Hundreds of thousands if not millions will die in this war over those terms, and it may very well end in white peace. And the people are fine with this This game's diplomacy system is still trash, and will be until they allow war goals to escalate more before, and during, the war. It's stupid to see such major wars fought over nothing.
It's especially frustrating in the current patch with how aggressive the AI is over petty and inconsequential things. The great powers will intervene at the drop of a hat for a treaty port, fight for ten years, cost millions of lives sink their economies, and then immediately do it again.
Slight tangent, but what is the mostly red flag? From context I'm assuming it's you as the USA, but what abomination of a government generates whatever flag that is?
I’m socialist USA
The lack of war goals is laughable, and there really should be peace conferences. But even without war goals it can be interesting to go to war for diplomatic reasons, and to be able to add devastation and kill the population of a rival. Occupation should be part of this but afaik it's pretty tame at the moment.
Man I also hate how limited the Dip plays are i. scope. Dip plays should have intensities - going from stuff like regional conflicts to international crises. How they determine severity can be from a combination of the participants, the GDP of the areas at stake, etc. The greater the conflict, the more maneuvers become available. In the case of an international crisis, which is the most intense version of a dip play, all GPs are dragged similar to how Vic 2 does, and failure to resolve the crisis diplomatically results in a Great War, where every participant has their own full set of maneuvers to use instead of sharing from a pool. Then, peace conferences should be a thing that enforces all the demands from the maneuvers depending on how badly one side lose. That way the stakes are way bigger
Say what you will about managing stacks but the Vic 2 war goal system was much more dynamic and created more interesting outcomes
I think the game should quantify what intensity of conflict it was. If small colonies are the focus of the war, taking incorporated land should be extremely difficult. If there's a small scale border skirmish that doesn't escalate, then the province should be split, or a split province taken. If that border skirmish escalates, or if the war goals are large to start with, then it's a full-scale war. Peace deals need to be totally reworked. You should be able to add war goals while offering peace. Your additional maneuvers are calculated based on casualties, duration, and devastation. (Germany won the Franco-Prussian war very quickly, they don't get to do much more than a quick partial occupation. Germany lost WW2, so it's divided and puppeted.) The opposing side can deny peace offers just like now, but it takes a war support hit if the population considers the peace offer favorable. *Offering* a harsh peace deal gives you a slight infamy hit, and other countries have the option to get involved under certain conditions. (If I'm winning an escalated border conflict, the world won't bat an eye when I ask for that province, but if I demand half of China, then they may choose to get involved to stop me.) Peace deals should be offered strategically, and only denied if they're unacceptable.
I can never accept the fact that nations can't join after war breaks out, not just ahistorical but also unfun, truly one of the worst decisions they made
and they made a lot of bad decisions
they need to basically do the crisis system from Vic2 i feel for great wars, and if a war boils over into a *great war* then it starts a new "Great Diplo Play" where new specialised demands can be made as the war is on-going, makes demands more dynamic (as they should be) and can make wars go on longer and be more life or death instead of losing and then just being humiliated
We straight up need a "Great War" system as a new mechanic. Someone made a post about it here a short while ago. If more than 5-6 Great Powers join in on a diplomatic play, it should have a chance to escalate into a "World War". Where infamy penalties are less and there are much more maneuvers to use, from every great power involved. I don't even care if it makes the game / certain countries snowball or progress too fast, it can be balanced one way or another. But the game is direly missing some huge wars with *real* stakes. Maybe it could be restricted to only happen after 1918 or so, for the late game moments.
what we need is a expansion update centred around war. Some mechanics to reduce the scale of war in the early game and some grand war mechanic after 1900 creating some really nice large and horrifying wars which lets entire economies shatter
Part of it is because infamy gain is just way to freaking high for territory unless it's a return state play.
How the hell is prussia a belgian subject
Schleswig-Holstein rebelled against Scandinavia and managed to fight off the landing attempts, then Schleswig-Holstein decided to call itself Prussia, since normal Prussia had already become North Germany by then.
They definitely should add a great War system of some kind that kicks in in the very late game
Update: We won the war, lots of people died, and Russia is still a massive power, so is Austria. But hey, we got Denmark and Alaska. That’s what your husbands, sons, and brothers died for.
I've seen the AI going hard recently, taking like 6 states and a bunch of other stuff. I think they're just scared of infamy though. The game isn't built for a WW1 redrawing of Europe, you can't cede territory to existing countries and it potentially costs you 35 infamy per state you take
They should create a feature of"Great War" were all the superpower take a side and after the end there's a peace conference just like hoi4
Irl powers will have reasons for going to war but what actually gets decided in the peace deal is much different hoi4 does a much better job at realizing this. I’m not advocating for copy and pasting hois peace deal system mind you it has its own issues in its own game that would be seen twice as worse in Vicky. But I think being able to add and remove war goals as the war is happening and maybe having an actual peace conference where nations can again add or remove war goals would help. Also infamy gains for wars are much to high in some cases and there’s still no real Great War system. I almost never see great wars happen in my games it’s usually all the powers jumping one nation who got out of hand. This makes sense for the 1800s but by the 1900s the balance of power should already have shifted far too much for this to be the case. TLDR: the peace deal and war goal system suck hoi does it better but not perfect and there needs to be a rework.
You can remove war goal but cant add
Realistically speaking, ww1 could probably look like several wars involving each of the involved great powers and even then Vic3 doesn’t really model that type of warfare well. I’m here hoping for hoi5 to start 1910 and to go up to 1960 or something, probably the best solution for ww1 in a paradox game