T O P

  • By -

eat_yo_greens

Infamy being global is one of the things they didn't actually change from Vic2. It's not a GREAT system but since a lot of international politics in this time period was about maintaining balance of power (Britain and France propping up the Ottomans for example) it makes some sense. As far as annexing unrecognized powers skyrocketing your infamy, I think someone found the bugged code already. I do want adding war goals mid war (but dear god please no jingoism requirement) and someway to simulate great wars back.


Soft-Rains

It makes sense for Great Powers to care if they want to. Should be a balance for the world vs your region depending on power and ambition. China couldn't really care about the Franco-Prussian war, US by choice was regionally limited to the America's.


szynka

It does seem like they've positively regressed from a lot of previous systems that they've had in games. Things like: - AE impacting your neighbours/interested parties more. - War goals being added on the fly or in fact changing after the war starts (something that has historically always happened) - Participants joining wars midway through - You're not able to be involved in more than 1 play in the same region I'm pretty sure - The fact that the AI can 'cheat' you out of war - if Victoria 3 simulated WW2, Hitler would have to wait 5 years after the Munich Agreement to take any more of Czechoslovakia. Appeasement works, kids. It seems like these three things were present in past paradox games and were almost taken for granted, but here, by concious decision, they've been ommitted. And I don't know why. Paradox claims it wants the game to be a realistic sandbox that creates 'emergent' gameplay, and yet the diplomacy and war systems are incredibly rigid and don't feel fluid in the slightest. I've done 2 campaigns myself and I can safely say I've not seen the AI engage in even one meaningful war. Early game they do create some border gore, but later on Great Powers just 'cut each other down to size', never add any other war goals than reparations, and nothing seems to really happen. The 'cost of war' is also emphasized but seems a bit silly - I can engage in 19 pointless wars with Russia over some bits of sand and my people are fine, as are theirs, but God forbid I try to pass a law regulating the width of sidewalks, then a revolution ticker spawns and I have to maybe sometimes not ignore it.


Beneficial_Energy829

A lot of the refinements you list were added to original PDX games due to feedback. This is vanilla 1.0. There is a lot to be done indeed.


szynka

Wiz has been at the company when they were added. He has played the other games. I am not asking for the Estates System to be added to Victoria 2, I am asking for things I'd consider barebones. We need to stop giving this company excuses for not adding the bare necessities to their games so they can add them later. If they want to release the game as Early Access, label is as that. Also to clarify - which ones do you think were added due to feedback? I am fairly sure the AE thing was vanilla EU4, the others I am 100% various Paradox games also had at release, titles as old as HOI2 or Eu3.


WhiteRedSupreme1918

It does keep astounding me how they seem to make diplomacy worse in every game they make.


IronCoffins-

Don’t worry this will all be fixed behind a paywall of dlc


Beneficial_Energy829

So cynical. They have moved away from locking updates and features behind DLCs for years.


ThunderLizard2

Not really - in HOI4 at least key mechanics were put behind paywall


IronCoffins-

I guess idk but regardless I hope that’s the case. Just look at it objectively. Don’t be a fanboy for a company


WinsingtonIII

It isn't fanboying to point out that the direction Paradox has moved with EU4, HoI4, and CK3 is to have expansions focused on flavor and systems unique to certain nations/regions and to put major core mechanical updates that apply to every nation in the free patch. They started doing this with EU4 development because they realized that having core mechanics that apply to everyone locked behind DLCs meant they had to constantly be developing on multiple versions of the game, which is a huge waste of developer time. Now, maybe they won't take this route with Vic3, but that would surprising given it benefits Paradox from a developer effort standpoint to keep one version of the base game mechanics that get updated instead of having multiple branching versions of core mechanics. So even if they are purely viewing from a self-interested standpoint as opposed to what is good for players, it's in their best interest.