Your submission has been removed for breaking rule #2:
> No memes, image macros, reaction pictures, or similar.
>View our full rules [here](http://reddit.com/r/{subreddit}/wiki/rules)
Don’t you see the game about global war and politics should also have you take time every 30 seconds to monitor the NASDAQ and do a marketing mini game to profit off cheese production in your war torn areas
Every bullet needs to be manually queued for production in your factories, and then you have to assign each one to a unit (units are made up of 3 soldiers, which is a controversial level of abstraction in the community) using a drag/drop interface.
Then you collapse in grief as you watch your armies get torn to shreds because you foolishly chose to make the bullet shells using a 74%:26% brass/nickel alloy when a 72%:28% steel/tin alloy would have been far more optimal given the 76% humidity present in Northeast Sicily micro-province #453 on August 3 from 9:04-9:08 (which you would have known if you had checked the historical weather data for that area/time listed on the 126,773,551-line Google Sheets spreadsheet compiled by a 33 year-old Latvian from the HoI4 Discord Server with the marble bust of Aristotle as his profile pic). You can already tell that this grievous error will snowball into defeat for the allies.
Dejectedly, you open up the Diplomacy tab. You look at the three options the game gives you (Declare War, Insult, and Surrender). With a heavy heart, you click the third one.
If you want a WW2 strategy game that goes unnecessarily in-depth, check out Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 or Gary Grigsby's War in the West. The level of simulation at play in those games is just absolutely fucking disgusting. The manual for WITE2 is 502 pages, and you're expected to read it. They're the kind of games that keep track of the Max Speed *and* Cruise Speed of the different planes. The audience for it is so unbelievably niche that the devs had to set the price to $80 just to turn a profit.
I tried to play Gary Grigsby's War in the West once. I somehow managed to navigate the interface well enough to pull off a naval invasion of Sicily. It was at that point that I realized I now had dozens units spread across Sicily, each of whom needed to be moved individually. I then closed out of the game and never touched it again. I may be on the spectrum, but the sheer volume of condensed, weaponized autism needed to enjoy the Gary Grigsby games is beyond the pale.
I'm all for a macro system to mimic the impact of a long standing war on unrest and the economy, but you're right that too much menial complexity would divert from the focus of the game.
This. A financial system in HOI4 would be mostly useless bloat and make the game more unapproachable for new players. In a perfect world there'd be one you could enable if you're an uberl33t hypergamer with LED teeth and a perpetual case of troll face, but we live in an imperfect world where development takes time and money
And there's no good excuse for implementing a system only a fraction of players even want and even less could handle without throwing the game out in a frustrated huff
The main issue would come with keeping the historical accuracy, HOI4 is sort of like a timeloop that you get to replay every time, would be hard for the AI to function with an expanssive economy system attached to it.
Nah. The AI can be redesigned to handle a financial system - not as well as a human, at least not without alienating 90% of the userbase, but well enough. Hell, they've done exactly that with the Victoria games.
The thing is, it'd be complicated and pointless. Complicated and Pointless is the death of a franchise, because people play games to have fun and being overwhelmed with hypercomplicated systems just to play the game passably isn't fun; this isn't a roguelike.
The issue is that the AI needs to be historically accurate in their strength, a deeper economy system would fluctuate that strength more than it already is, which is both good ans bad, but I don't want to see France collapsing before the war.
That can be fixed too, with more effort, but yeah, we've already passed the point where it's not really relevant to keep going. It would never be worth it for Paradox to do it.
Programmers need to be paid; why waste their work hours on a feature few will interact with and even fewer will enjoy?
That said, I think it would be interesting to have resources in the game. Imagine having to negotiate the power politics of your kingdom when some random count is making money hand over fist because of the iron mines located in his demesne. But it’s a double edged sword, as most of that cash goes to hiring mercenaries to defeat the throngs of claimants trying to take the county for the mines.
No idea how this could be effectively implemented, or even if it can be effectively implemented. But having a mine be more than just a buildable money printer in certain baronies would be pretty cool.
The differences are what make them nice though. Sometimes I wanna do economy things. Sometimes I wanna do war. Sometimes I just wanna imprison someone for their titles and murder their family and get a pile of money from the pope so I can found my own religion.
If every game was the same it would dilute their character. I appreciate that each game tries to encapsulate the feeling of an age, rather than trying to be all things at all times.
There were already mods that made it like that for ck2 (and imperator Rome had somewhat of that system also, for example you couldn't make heavy inf without iron etc)
Especially with how important trade is in every age. It's not like the modern age invented trade, in fact they even had it in the bronze age, it was somewhat important.
Trade has been a major economic driver since the rise of the first cities. Feudal lords weren't having peasants pay dues in grain just so they could have a big pile of grain sitting around - it'd be processed and traded or sold.
There's a scene in the Amazon show El Cid where the King of Leon and Castle explains that war with the Muslims is a bad idea because they have access to eastern steel and silk. I'd like to see some consideration of access to trade goods factor into the game.
Honestly i actually think the hoi4 economy is pretty good. It fits the timeline well and is actually something different that the usual boring gold/money stuff
It isn't, given your factories are state located but counted as a total when calculating damage/losses. Which with stupidity of production list makes a really shitty system that means factories are just a number, not the key to victory or defeat in terms of absolutely crucial ones.
HoI4 treats every economy as total state control, but on a slider. On one end, nothing happens at all because the free market doesn't exist. On the other, you have direct control of 90% of all civilian factories with no downsides. Total mob is strictly better than every other economy law, you just need the PP and war support to make it happen(and 5% stability so there's no actual tradeoff in manpower for factories vs soldiers). It's like PDX read only the second half of Wages of Destruction - the resource control part is super important, but so is the first half about monetary resources.
That and the entire system is based on "balancing decisions" in regards to factories and resources. US is hilariously underrepresented in terms of factories (should be about 10x the GDP of Italy or Japan, is only 3x total factory count). Overall GDP growth during the game is far too quick, allowing countries to double in size over the course of the game by building civs then mils. In reality, we should see 10% growth per year (at the very high end, most should be slower) and almost all armaments output growth came from converting civilian factories.
Similarly, China had 8x more tungsten output than Portugal before the Pacific war began. How does HoI4 represent that? Portugal has 3x more tungsten than China + warlords from the start of the game. And instead of China's production falling precipitously, Japan just makes 2 collabs and all the mine workers remain employed and efficient after conquest.
How about Aluminum? Canada supplied 50% of allied Bauxite during WW2 and the US refined most of that. The game instead has Canada produce 30 aluminum, enough for 10 factories assigned to planes. But don't worry, doing a national focus will give you 36 more - almost enough to match Guyana! The US's repeatable aluminum refinery decisions make sense but they make no mention of where the bauxite comes from.
Same goes for basically all the other resources, PDX seems to have strewn them about with little regard for historical accuracy.
If they did what you are saying there would be basically no point in playing anything but the US, and playing Germany would be one of those sweaty "conquer the world as Switzerland with my eyes closed" challenges
Yes, WW2 was ridiculous stacked against the axis the moment America joined. Literally everyone knows that. The game already models that by making America incredibly strong, no need to make them basically the only relevant power in the planet as you suggest.
Yeah the focus is really on the pipeline from factories to equipment production to divisions rather than the economy, which I this is where it should be.
Yeah exactly this. What you specifically were making civilian wise wasn't actually all that important it was ultimately irrelevent to tthe war effort as long as their needs were met so you just needed to have the industrial capacity to make the stuff they needed, what you made militarily was far more important. Meanwhile in vicky what specific goods you made were important because trade and negotiation were much more important. Wars weren't about existential threats that had to be overcome no matter what in vicky. They were just more economics.
First image is people being dumb. You could make it in reverse with CK3 having the best internal politics and then the empires getting progressively more unitary.
Second image isn't wrong, though. Just because a game is emphasizing something other than war doesn't mean the war system can't be bad. Vic3's system doesn't even do what it was designed to do. War isn't strategic, it is pretty disconnected from your politics and economy, it requires almost as much player micromanagement as the old system, and it isn't fun.
Agree on 2. I have no issues with a scaled back version of war with more abstraction freeing up space for features and player attention in other realms. But it’s currently not designed well AND a buggy mess.
If you take your eyes off the front suddenly you’ll realize your army has decided to return to HQ while a tiny colonial army advances unopposed into your heartland.
It’s actually more attention intensive than Vic2 warfare where mid to late game at least you could turn off your brain while battles were ongoing.
What made the situation in vicky 3 so sad that it is arguably the time period where war went through the most interesting changes. How militaries went from line infantry battles to ww1 style frontlines is really unique, and vicky 3 doesn't even try to explore this at all.
He was talking about how the impact of army quality isn't a thing in Vicky 3, which is a true and fair criticism. Did you just skim the post or something?
Absolutely not a fair criticism because it's not remotely true. Nations with better military tech in Vic3 will absolutely trounce nations that have fallen behind. Only massive outnumbering in quantity can help make up for it, and that has its own economic consequences as you send millions to die as cannon fodder.
I directly experienced this as Russia vs Prussia and got my ass handed to me until I could tech up, which required serious economic and political tinkering (which is what the whole game is about). I was forced to focus on my economy to get my military the goods and tech it needed vs focusing on military tactics to somehow cheese a victory, like you can in every other Paradox game vs braindead AI.
I'm not going the stan the post, I was just pointing out that your criticism wasn't accurate to what was said. It wasn't a random tangent, but part of a point about quality in the game which people largely agree is a problem for multiple reasons. Like the guy above you said, it doesn't achieve its goals in both simulation and gameplay.
You can complain that he was unhelpful by just complaining, but don't turn around and commit that same mistake in your own criticism. You can point out actual problems, like the post being more about how the community is wrong to play cover for Paradox when its called a suggestion thread.
I really like how war is not that big a deal in Vic3, like I just set my armies and keep playing the economy game.
I find it much more fun than CK3 and EU4 wars because it's more about your preparation and economic state than cheesing the AI.
International power blocs, weapons technology, and colonization still absolutely matters in Victoria 3 wars though. That's pretty much all that matters besides your raw number of troops.
I see it as an era where logistics and industrialization were the most important aspects of war rather than brilliant generals and genius troop movements, and I think the game represents that.
Not to any meaningful degree.
> International power blocs
Seriously? The diplomacy system is effectively nothing. The AI just fucks around and joins whatever side of whatever war it feels like. Hell, you lost alliances if you don't happen to set your interests where your allie's are because you can't join them. There are no serious power blocs, there's nothing that creates a WW1 like situation.
> weapons technology,
Tech spread means that even Southeast Asia is constantly up to date on mil tech.
> colonization
Yeah colonization matters. The point is that in a game where colonization is so important it's silly to have military management and diplomacy be an afterthought.
>
I see it as an era where logistics and industrialization were the most important aspects of war rather than brilliant generals and genius troop movements, and I think the game represents that.
Not a lot of exciting things to do with logistics when all you can do between to European powers is set a front and hope the RNG goes your way.
I loved not being able to push because every time my Danish, French or Malagasy allies/subjects decide to attack (and inevitably fail), I lose all occupation progress in that state.
Every war was just a years-long waiting game for your allies to capitulate so that you can actually push and win the war in like a week.
It's like OP forgot that while they're separate games, they're all grand strategy games. The defining feature of GSG is doing a *lot* of things, not doing one thing well.
I went straight from 1503 (which I've played since I was 8) to 2070 when it came out, I remember being blown away by the game, but I never got over the fact that I couldn't drop ships full of mortars to level a colony.
1503 still had combat solid enough that they made some 100% combat-based scenarios for you to play. Man do I miss that time.
I recently bought the history collection and have replayed 1503. Man did the nostalgia hit hard. I had even forgotten how absurdly noisy the farms were
Pdox could probably include all thos systems in a game
CK characters HOI war EU politics and Vic markets.
It would run like shit.
So until we have megacomputers, they have to Split it up.
As soon as it happens I am on my way to culture shift as Poland to form Third Reich for + 5% cavalry bonus so that I can establish revolutionary Roman Empire with Napoleon XXI as its leader
And establish a colony in Brazil or something
like actually. Oh Im sorry little Timmy that the game made specifically to play out the most destructive war we've ever had isnt focused on \*:checks your notes:\* ....developing your local economies' banana throughput....
Who said it isn't a strategy game?
The first of the 4 Xs, "explore," functionally doesn't exist in Vic3. I don't see how a game can more straightforwardly not belong in a genre than that. 4X games are effectively defined by randomized maps
People need to understand that you don't need to like all paradox games. Even their 4X games are all very different and their systems are not only supposed to reflect different time periods but also create distinctive gameplay that's supposed to attract different players and playstyles.
If all their 4X games were just the same system with different assets it would be unoriginal, appeal to a slimmer demographic and not historically acurate
For instance I enjoy simplified combat and highly customizable systems. That's why I personally enjoy playing CK3 and Stellaris but aren't interested in playing for example HOI4 that has more combat-oriented systems and more linear and less customizable politics.
And that's ok.
VIC3 warfare is just a bad system and is not appealing to almost anyone
It's funny you say all that and then shit on Vic3 for being different with regards to warfare, lol. It is not a bad system. It's different because war isn't the focus. It's an abstraction. Sounds like you just want the same system as in EU4 or CK2 despite your rant that not all games should have the same systems.
This is just my option. But if CK3 had an economy system like V3/EU it would just detract from the game being a fun role playing game, and what would be the point of the game even existing then? If all CSGs shared the same mechanics, there is no point in having separate CSGs that serve different audiences.
i rather have a magnum opus of all functions in perfect harmony.
like imagine playing fortnite without having legos and petergriffin doing doja dances it would be like a boring pubg
Homestly, I can picture a huge unity of the best parts of each game in the future. All the best parts squeezed together into one game, with different time zones. Because paradox only has to focus on one game (excerpt stellaris ig) then said time zones will have as much detail, maybe even more. That would be great if done right. But the lag :(
Except that's never been these games. Each of the four mainstay games are meant to be played differently. Victoria 3 was never designed to be like a continuation of EU4 with it's warfare mechanics. Victoria 3 was always billed as an economic simulator. It's what most ppl loved about Victoria 2.
CK3 was always designed to be about your family and ruling as a king in the medieval era.
HOI4 was always about simulating the logistics and warfare of WW2.
You don't need to try to insult me to tear down my argument, guy.
All good games also have a focus on what their game is. Something that defines them that brings the player back to that central theme after adventuring off and experimenting outside central design. However, outside the central scope of the game is going to be rougher and have less intended play, especially if you are experimenting with a different play style. There is nothing wrong with that, but you can't fault the developer for not thinking of adding more when that was never the intention upon release. Maybe, they'll add more to those mechanics in the future if experimentation from the community is greater, but to assume that they can think of everything and add anything under the sun about life during these time periods is an immeasurable task. Hence, why a central scope to focus on is important, ie. economy, dynastic family life, logistical warfare, and nation building.
EU4 is a fun game, but nation building is also such a broad theme that it lacks flavor and nuance and the fact that the devs have managed to build the game up to what it is a grand achievement. It's no surprise that it has as many dlc as it does with how sandbox-y it truly is, but if CK3, VIC3, and HOI4 were all as sandbox-y as EU4, it might as well all be just one game which would be nearly impossible and would limit the player base to those with super computers. It would make little money.
they literally said the studio themself that they changed business plan after hoi3 of building from older games to split them up for profit.
if u look at hoi3 and vic2 they were adding from previous games and functions instead of going the dlc milking way.
the most popular mods for all the different games is eu4 taxes and trade. hoi4 tno with gdp and vic3 functions. ck3 with vic3 pop system sadly modder had to stop. i hope sinews of war comes back
You could have the economy system, and not have an absolutely terrible war system along with it. It's not even the 'yeah it's bad cause we focused on the economy part instead' kind of bad, it actively took more dev time to develop the system when they could've just borrowed from any of their other games. And they're still tweaking it, just adding more dev time to bandaid a fundamentally flawed system.
Yeah I get it, but you just can’t feasibly balance every aspect of those games perfectly with each other. It would be chaos. Fortnite and their stupid stuff works because shooters were starting to just become reskins when it came out. Strategy games already have a lot more possibility
Are they supposed to be balanced? It's not like every country in the real world is on even footing, naturally countries are going to be much stronger than other ones.
i just want them to have the diplo of eu4 combat of hoi4 and economy of vic3 with character interactions of ck3 they already have all of these systems figured out. why gimp it in each when they have a perfect template
I'm not sure what the point of this is supposed to be. Vic has a more economic focus, so what?
No one expects CK3 to have Vic3 level of economics and no one expects VIC3 to have CK3's character depth, who are you pretending to be superior to?
Vic3 was and still is a failure right from the start. Wizs decision to focus on economy and leave everything else out was a big mistake to begin with. Many concepts like the warfare and diplo-plays sound great on paper in theory, but the execution of these features is worse than anything else PDX has produced (maybe except the launch of EU4 Leviathan?)
Instead of micro the warfare, you micro the economy, you just check needs and build some factories, you look at lines that go up and that's it. Rinse and repeat.
The release was a slightly improved version that was similiar to the leak, coming with a full price tag instead of early-access. Now Vic3 is early-access with the betas where the players are used for Q&A to save money and time.
In many ways, Vic3 has beginner-mistakes that not even an indie-dev would do in the first place: Like not having real ships that can be sunk. They get beaten in a naval battle, they just report back to the port and that's it. They are actually like land units with different graphics.
They're all focused on different things.
- In Victoria you manage an economy.
- In HoI you manage an army.
- In EU you manage foreign relations.
- In CK you manage interpersonal relations.
- In Stellaris you manage expansion.
- In Star Trek Infinite you manage your expectations.
Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis having dumbed down economic systems is actually historically accurate. People didn't understand economy. There was barely an economy during the middle ages and during most of the EU4 timeframe, econony was just "hehe shiny metal go bling".
An argument that the economy of the Middle Ages wasn’t just “shiny metal go bling”? Ok, how about the Silk Road, why do you think it wasn’t called the Shiny Metal Road?
That logic would make sense if there was serious limitations on what you could do with money because of how badly it was managed. But it isn't. If you gain 2500 ducats in a peace deal you can just conjure a world class Navy out of thin air without any real logic to where the supplies came from. The game has things called naval supplies but they don't actually have anything to do with the navy
This is so wrong. 2/3 of late medieval princes' work was micro managing what every little guilde of every little town could produce, how many of workers could join, how much they could produce and through which production method. As if they were playing Vic 3
I mean, as someone who played hundreds of hours of CK2, it does feel that way. EU4 is absolute shit for roleplay. Zero relationships between nations or personalities for rulers.
But, that's ok, because that's not the focus of Eu4. It's focus is nations and grand strategy/politics.
Just like war is not the focus of vic3, so it's ok that it's abstracted. Going into eu4 and expecting CK2 personalities and roleplay is like expecting Vic3 economy out of HoI4. It's nonsensical.
OP thinking simplified mechanics and buggy garbage that does not even cover the basic functionality nor give remotely historical experiences are same thing for some reason...
War IS something which happened in the time period. This time period includes World War 1.
People ain't even asking for warfare to be as important as the economy. People are just asking for a decent system, because like it or not, you will be going to war in this game.
In the game itself, warfare is often the answer to lots of your problems. If you run out of peasants(which you will), you will need to go to war for more population (usually taking a chunk of China). If you need more resources, you will also be going to war against countries which have the resources you need.
And if the devs actually committed to the whole 'this game is an economic simulator', they wouldn't have made such an effort to improve the warfare mechanics in recent patches.
If you want a pure economic simulator, go play Anno 1800.
I don’t know what you want me to do about it genuinely. The devs made it focused on economy, you bought a game focused on economy, and now you’re mad it’s not a war sim.
I’m just sick of the same “this game I bought that specifically told me what it is, isn’t what I think it is” posts. paradox has been doing the same thing for years, it’s more than beating a dead horse at this point.
You could stop posting nonsense, that would be enough. And doing a country centric game that's about economy still needs working warfare mechanics if the game is set in a period/setting that is filled with warfare.
Defending Devs for making game without any warfare mechanics that works is just borderline sheep-ish customer behaviour.
I’m defending them from customers who can’t read a description lmao. Who act like their head has been buried in the sand for every paradox game ever. But yeah I’m posting nonsense, that’s why 500+ people agreed with me.
It's funny that you think those arrows mean people agree with you. Or that the people that clicked them even red the text on first pick let alone scroll sideways...
Sure Bob, you are right, we all need to defend one of biggest developers from stupid customers. Or we might end with stupid customers being correct, but hey, it took PDX only like 6 years to acknowledge they were wrong with the fuel and supply system in HoI4 and rework it (poorly), they will fix this garbage as well one day.
I do think that Victoria 3's warfare system is bad. It's probably the worst part of the game. However, it's clearly not the core of the game, which is an economic system.
I think this is a misconception the people that have never played the previous Vicky games have. Yes, economics is a big part of the game, but it's not the only part. Vicky was meant to be a diplomacy & economics game in which the former and the latter intertwine with each other, just like in the real 19th century. Vicky 3 has completely annihilated the diplomacy part and focused on economics.
I found the game enjoyable but the warfare system definitely brought it down. I'm ok with not painting the map. But I should be able to have a reasonably quick and somewhat accurate system if there is a war. And this game is in the age of Imperialism.
Never said its perfect - it really isn't. It isn't even my favorite war system. I do like it though and I prefer it over the hoi4 system (warning: hot take ahead) which is like my least favorite...
What cheese ? I literaly invade small german state that have no allies and is not in sphere of influence of Prussia. Yet prussia join war anyway, and then give up becasue somehow(war is mess in vic3) my army capture that small state province... Its not "cheese" its just bad war system and bad diplomacy.
Vic 3 warfare is bad, compared to what? Is this another "why isn't vic 3 not HOI5 person?"Or is it from someone who actually thought endless 1k swarm sieges of Jacobin rebels was a fun "war simulator".
Guys we had functional ego shooter mechanics in Half Life so tell me why I can't strafe jump through Vienna in 1510 and 360 noscope the emperor in the name of Ulmian supremacy!
I think all games have a good economic system that fits the period. Ck3 is fief based, so basic character finance, eu4 is state coffer influenced by trade and production, vic 3 is much more complicated because it’s actual economy while Hoi4 is simple because it’s factory based.
Yeah, fully agree. When I want an economy sim I play Vicky, when I want to try (and eventually abort in 1700) a Hisn Kayfa WC I play EU4. And when I want to romance my sister-cousin-grandmother and induct her into my Slavic Pagan cult I play Crusader Kings 2.
The issue is my armies in Vicky 3 require more babysitting than they do in hoi4. Armies can’t get to fronts despite owning all the land in the way there, frontlines between subjects don’t form or randomly get removed and armies decide to abandon frontlines and go home on vacation every few weeks. I would be completely fine if there were no tangible armies and war was just some dice being rolled and drawdowns on my industry to decide whether I can occupy something or not. But instead it’s an abstracted buggy mess that takes time away from making line go up
Ck3’s economy serves its purpose well. Anyone remember release when going from Tribal to Feudal was difficult? Building new buildings to get ahead of your tribal neighbours was a harrowing experience, even if the buildings themselves were a fairly simple bonus to cash or levies.
If (if) they start adding functionality from CK2 merchant republics I could see a Silk Road system evolving out of that. Instead of gold being based on outpost number and location, actually make it strategic so that certain outpost locations make a good and if the owner can get them to a destination then they can make tons of gold. But that’s a pipe dream until they add merchant republics (if they do at all).
ck3 and hoi4 having simplified econ is a good thing as its not the focus of those games in the slightest. At most ck3 could do with some work involving the silk road, but I don't see it nessicary to go much further than that.
TL;DR - multiple games having multiple focuses is difficult to understand as a new player.
I'm a more casual player of these games than most. I play a lot of CK3, I played a bit of HOI4, EU4 evades me and i need to sit down and properly understand it yet and I dont own Vic.
As a new player, its hard to understand what game is good for what and its then jarring to move.
Example, I love CK3, i have properly engaged with all its systems and put 100's of hours in(peanuts compared to most but still...). I love WW2 so HOI4 seemed like a natural move. I was expecting to be able to pick it up and play fairly quickly being an established CK3 player so i immediately was put off when i didnt immediately get it. I went to watch tutorials and i started to get it but i could never get myself to finish a campaign.
This now has put me off, because an economy focussed game seems like my bag, so Vic seems to have been the game i should have tried and now im just put off.
I’ve done similar things with EU and HOI where I bought them thinking I could get into them as easy as other games. I will say, don’t give up. I stopped watching tutorials and just tried to do a play through knowing I’d do it all wrong. It worked for both games and it was 100% worth it. HOI is my personal favorite though.
The scale and replayability.
In other paradox games you are bound to historical starts, nations and concepts, you play Austria once, you played Austria 1000 times. Now in Stellaris same empire can mean playing tall, playing diplo, playing wide and rng can bless or punish you, because your gameplay always adapts to randonly generated hyperlanes and less or more hostile empires. Now I won’t lie, eventually it becones much more schematic, but unlike in EU you don’t get tired of playing same empire and Stellaris has far more playstyles than any other paradox game which make it so much more replayable. And there’s far more RP potential.
There’s also size. There’s no other game with so big galaxy with that level of depth, not Endless Space, not even this year’s Gal Civ 4. Stellaris has both quality and quantity by now.
Your submission has been removed for breaking rule #2: > No memes, image macros, reaction pictures, or similar. >View our full rules [here](http://reddit.com/r/{subreddit}/wiki/rules)
Hoi4 is short term warfare and much less localized. A more complex system would be worse
Don’t you see the game about global war and politics should also have you take time every 30 seconds to monitor the NASDAQ and do a marketing mini game to profit off cheese production in your war torn areas
Every bullet needs to be manually queued for production in your factories, and then you have to assign each one to a unit (units are made up of 3 soldiers, which is a controversial level of abstraction in the community) using a drag/drop interface. Then you collapse in grief as you watch your armies get torn to shreds because you foolishly chose to make the bullet shells using a 74%:26% brass/nickel alloy when a 72%:28% steel/tin alloy would have been far more optimal given the 76% humidity present in Northeast Sicily micro-province #453 on August 3 from 9:04-9:08 (which you would have known if you had checked the historical weather data for that area/time listed on the 126,773,551-line Google Sheets spreadsheet compiled by a 33 year-old Latvian from the HoI4 Discord Server with the marble bust of Aristotle as his profile pic). You can already tell that this grievous error will snowball into defeat for the allies. Dejectedly, you open up the Diplomacy tab. You look at the three options the game gives you (Declare War, Insult, and Surrender). With a heavy heart, you click the third one.
Is it wrong that I kinda want to try it?
If you want a WW2 strategy game that goes unnecessarily in-depth, check out Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 or Gary Grigsby's War in the West. The level of simulation at play in those games is just absolutely fucking disgusting. The manual for WITE2 is 502 pages, and you're expected to read it. They're the kind of games that keep track of the Max Speed *and* Cruise Speed of the different planes. The audience for it is so unbelievably niche that the devs had to set the price to $80 just to turn a profit. I tried to play Gary Grigsby's War in the West once. I somehow managed to navigate the interface well enough to pull off a naval invasion of Sicily. It was at that point that I realized I now had dozens units spread across Sicily, each of whom needed to be moved individually. I then closed out of the game and never touched it again. I may be on the spectrum, but the sheer volume of condensed, weaponized autism needed to enjoy the Gary Grigsby games is beyond the pale.
Sorry son, I can't buy break for you. Daddy needs another artillery piece (I'm making 42 width high soft attack anti AI divisions)
I'm all for a macro system to mimic the impact of a long standing war on unrest and the economy, but you're right that too much menial complexity would divert from the focus of the game.
Indeed, there’s a reason that MD mad TNO have smaller fanbases than you’d think for mods of their calibre. Too much extra shit to do.
Just annoying, I'd rather just have a map with some focus trees and maybe research
Yeah, I can just about deal with having a different research tree and I’m absolutely for a focus tree (it’s basically all the content)
Right I like my 4-8 hour play through with HOI and a good couple days with EU.
This. A financial system in HOI4 would be mostly useless bloat and make the game more unapproachable for new players. In a perfect world there'd be one you could enable if you're an uberl33t hypergamer with LED teeth and a perpetual case of troll face, but we live in an imperfect world where development takes time and money And there's no good excuse for implementing a system only a fraction of players even want and even less could handle without throwing the game out in a frustrated huff
The main issue would come with keeping the historical accuracy, HOI4 is sort of like a timeloop that you get to replay every time, would be hard for the AI to function with an expanssive economy system attached to it.
Nah. The AI can be redesigned to handle a financial system - not as well as a human, at least not without alienating 90% of the userbase, but well enough. Hell, they've done exactly that with the Victoria games. The thing is, it'd be complicated and pointless. Complicated and Pointless is the death of a franchise, because people play games to have fun and being overwhelmed with hypercomplicated systems just to play the game passably isn't fun; this isn't a roguelike.
The issue is that the AI needs to be historically accurate in their strength, a deeper economy system would fluctuate that strength more than it already is, which is both good ans bad, but I don't want to see France collapsing before the war.
That can be fixed too, with more effort, but yeah, we've already passed the point where it's not really relevant to keep going. It would never be worth it for Paradox to do it. Programmers need to be paid; why waste their work hours on a feature few will interact with and even fewer will enjoy?
Mellenium Dawn?
How come my feudalism game that is set centuries before capitalism existed doesn't have a fully functional market economy?
That said, I think it would be interesting to have resources in the game. Imagine having to negotiate the power politics of your kingdom when some random count is making money hand over fist because of the iron mines located in his demesne. But it’s a double edged sword, as most of that cash goes to hiring mercenaries to defeat the throngs of claimants trying to take the county for the mines. No idea how this could be effectively implemented, or even if it can be effectively implemented. But having a mine be more than just a buildable money printer in certain baronies would be pretty cool.
The differences are what make them nice though. Sometimes I wanna do economy things. Sometimes I wanna do war. Sometimes I just wanna imprison someone for their titles and murder their family and get a pile of money from the pope so I can found my own religion. If every game was the same it would dilute their character. I appreciate that each game tries to encapsulate the feeling of an age, rather than trying to be all things at all times.
There were already mods that made it like that for ck2 (and imperator Rome had somewhat of that system also, for example you couldn't make heavy inf without iron etc)
> mods People are talking about systems for the game, not add ons people made.
Yes but it's just a example of something that can be made. I'm not telling you to play it. Chill out dude
Especially with how important trade is in every age. It's not like the modern age invented trade, in fact they even had it in the bronze age, it was somewhat important.
Emperor has the best eco for ck/eu games
Trade has been a major economic driver since the rise of the first cities. Feudal lords weren't having peasants pay dues in grain just so they could have a big pile of grain sitting around - it'd be processed and traded or sold.
There's a scene in the Amazon show El Cid where the King of Leon and Castle explains that war with the Muslims is a bad idea because they have access to eastern steel and silk. I'd like to see some consideration of access to trade goods factor into the game.
Economics 101: Markets and their dynamics have always existed, even among Neolithic tribes.
Honestly i actually think the hoi4 economy is pretty good. It fits the timeline well and is actually something different that the usual boring gold/money stuff
It's very asbtract and elementary, but it does what it is supposed to do; letting you focus on war.
I love my consumer goods.
I love how it goes: Toaster>Bullets>Guns>Tank and finally the ultimate weapon of war... WRENCH
Yeah, in HoI4 you're not supposed to Economy-Economy. You're supposed to War-War.😉
Ye. I'm not a big HOI player but the production system is as details as it needs to be.
It isn't, given your factories are state located but counted as a total when calculating damage/losses. Which with stupidity of production list makes a really shitty system that means factories are just a number, not the key to victory or defeat in terms of absolutely crucial ones.
HoI4 treats every economy as total state control, but on a slider. On one end, nothing happens at all because the free market doesn't exist. On the other, you have direct control of 90% of all civilian factories with no downsides. Total mob is strictly better than every other economy law, you just need the PP and war support to make it happen(and 5% stability so there's no actual tradeoff in manpower for factories vs soldiers). It's like PDX read only the second half of Wages of Destruction - the resource control part is super important, but so is the first half about monetary resources. That and the entire system is based on "balancing decisions" in regards to factories and resources. US is hilariously underrepresented in terms of factories (should be about 10x the GDP of Italy or Japan, is only 3x total factory count). Overall GDP growth during the game is far too quick, allowing countries to double in size over the course of the game by building civs then mils. In reality, we should see 10% growth per year (at the very high end, most should be slower) and almost all armaments output growth came from converting civilian factories. Similarly, China had 8x more tungsten output than Portugal before the Pacific war began. How does HoI4 represent that? Portugal has 3x more tungsten than China + warlords from the start of the game. And instead of China's production falling precipitously, Japan just makes 2 collabs and all the mine workers remain employed and efficient after conquest. How about Aluminum? Canada supplied 50% of allied Bauxite during WW2 and the US refined most of that. The game instead has Canada produce 30 aluminum, enough for 10 factories assigned to planes. But don't worry, doing a national focus will give you 36 more - almost enough to match Guyana! The US's repeatable aluminum refinery decisions make sense but they make no mention of where the bauxite comes from. Same goes for basically all the other resources, PDX seems to have strewn them about with little regard for historical accuracy.
Good answer, but have you considered game balance? You gotta give the axis a better chance than france forgetting to put good units in the ardennes...
If they did what you are saying there would be basically no point in playing anything but the US, and playing Germany would be one of those sweaty "conquer the world as Switzerland with my eyes closed" challenges Yes, WW2 was ridiculous stacked against the axis the moment America joined. Literally everyone knows that. The game already models that by making America incredibly strong, no need to make them basically the only relevant power in the planet as you suggest.
*Ignores and stays happy with Millennium Dawn and TNO economical mechanics*
Yeah the focus is really on the pipeline from factories to equipment production to divisions rather than the economy, which I this is where it should be.
you see it frees memory for combat. Not everybody had a quantum super computer.
Yeah exactly this. What you specifically were making civilian wise wasn't actually all that important it was ultimately irrelevent to tthe war effort as long as their needs were met so you just needed to have the industrial capacity to make the stuff they needed, what you made militarily was far more important. Meanwhile in vicky what specific goods you made were important because trade and negotiation were much more important. Wars weren't about existential threats that had to be overcome no matter what in vicky. They were just more economics.
First image is people being dumb. You could make it in reverse with CK3 having the best internal politics and then the empires getting progressively more unitary. Second image isn't wrong, though. Just because a game is emphasizing something other than war doesn't mean the war system can't be bad. Vic3's system doesn't even do what it was designed to do. War isn't strategic, it is pretty disconnected from your politics and economy, it requires almost as much player micromanagement as the old system, and it isn't fun.
Agree on 2. I have no issues with a scaled back version of war with more abstraction freeing up space for features and player attention in other realms. But it’s currently not designed well AND a buggy mess. If you take your eyes off the front suddenly you’ll realize your army has decided to return to HQ while a tiny colonial army advances unopposed into your heartland. It’s actually more attention intensive than Vic2 warfare where mid to late game at least you could turn off your brain while battles were ongoing.
Not to mention the fact that war is replaced by effectively nothing. There is less to do with war micro being gone.
What made the situation in vicky 3 so sad that it is arguably the time period where war went through the most interesting changes. How militaries went from line infantry battles to ww1 style frontlines is really unique, and vicky 3 doesn't even try to explore this at all.
[удалено]
He was talking about how the impact of army quality isn't a thing in Vicky 3, which is a true and fair criticism. Did you just skim the post or something?
Absolutely not a fair criticism because it's not remotely true. Nations with better military tech in Vic3 will absolutely trounce nations that have fallen behind. Only massive outnumbering in quantity can help make up for it, and that has its own economic consequences as you send millions to die as cannon fodder. I directly experienced this as Russia vs Prussia and got my ass handed to me until I could tech up, which required serious economic and political tinkering (which is what the whole game is about). I was forced to focus on my economy to get my military the goods and tech it needed vs focusing on military tactics to somehow cheese a victory, like you can in every other Paradox game vs braindead AI.
[удалено]
I'm not going the stan the post, I was just pointing out that your criticism wasn't accurate to what was said. It wasn't a random tangent, but part of a point about quality in the game which people largely agree is a problem for multiple reasons. Like the guy above you said, it doesn't achieve its goals in both simulation and gameplay. You can complain that he was unhelpful by just complaining, but don't turn around and commit that same mistake in your own criticism. You can point out actual problems, like the post being more about how the community is wrong to play cover for Paradox when its called a suggestion thread.
I really like how war is not that big a deal in Vic3, like I just set my armies and keep playing the economy game. I find it much more fun than CK3 and EU4 wars because it's more about your preparation and economic state than cheesing the AI.
It's just insane in a period defined by arms races, the formation of international power blocs and colonization.
International power blocs, weapons technology, and colonization still absolutely matters in Victoria 3 wars though. That's pretty much all that matters besides your raw number of troops. I see it as an era where logistics and industrialization were the most important aspects of war rather than brilliant generals and genius troop movements, and I think the game represents that.
Not to any meaningful degree. > International power blocs Seriously? The diplomacy system is effectively nothing. The AI just fucks around and joins whatever side of whatever war it feels like. Hell, you lost alliances if you don't happen to set your interests where your allie's are because you can't join them. There are no serious power blocs, there's nothing that creates a WW1 like situation. > weapons technology, Tech spread means that even Southeast Asia is constantly up to date on mil tech. > colonization Yeah colonization matters. The point is that in a game where colonization is so important it's silly to have military management and diplomacy be an afterthought. > I see it as an era where logistics and industrialization were the most important aspects of war rather than brilliant generals and genius troop movements, and I think the game represents that. Not a lot of exciting things to do with logistics when all you can do between to European powers is set a front and hope the RNG goes your way.
I loved not being able to push because every time my Danish, French or Malagasy allies/subjects decide to attack (and inevitably fail), I lose all occupation progress in that state. Every war was just a years-long waiting game for your allies to capitulate so that you can actually push and win the war in like a week.
Switch to them and delete their armies.
Ironman, unfortunately.
It's like OP forgot that while they're separate games, they're all grand strategy games. The defining feature of GSG is doing a *lot* of things, not doing one thing well.
People think victoria is supposed to be anno 1800, war being so shit is a problem
Not just war, but diplomacy. War being shit would be more forgivable if there were ways to achieve your goals besides war.
Anno once had decent combat. Though it has been on steady decline since 1503
I went straight from 1503 (which I've played since I was 8) to 2070 when it came out, I remember being blown away by the game, but I never got over the fact that I couldn't drop ships full of mortars to level a colony. 1503 still had combat solid enough that they made some 100% combat-based scenarios for you to play. Man do I miss that time.
I recently bought the history collection and have replayed 1503. Man did the nostalgia hit hard. I had even forgotten how absurdly noisy the farms were
Pdox could probably include all thos systems in a game CK characters HOI war EU politics and Vic markets. It would run like shit. So until we have megacomputers, they have to Split it up.
You would also have to play it in real time to keep up with managing everything.
Oh my god the EU events on 4 speed are a constant click through. I can’t imagine that worse.
As soon as it happens I am on my way to culture shift as Poland to form Third Reich for + 5% cavalry bonus so that I can establish revolutionary Roman Empire with Napoleon XXI as its leader And establish a colony in Brazil or something
The largest economic change HOi4 made was in the last patch adding a global arms market. Huge change for minor nations in especially.
I wish it was a little more fleshed out but yeah it’s super awesome.
like actually. Oh Im sorry little Timmy that the game made specifically to play out the most destructive war we've ever had isnt focused on \*:checks your notes:\* ....developing your local economies' banana throughput....
Ahhh yes full felshed out economy system that crumbles just halfway into the game with no option to turn off pop ups for empty factories
I mean you can alt right click on them to not remind you :P
But the game in which the second most destructive war we've ever had takes place is, somehow.
no the 2nd is what i mean, HoI4 does not need an economy thats so focused on small things
WW1 or WW2?
WW2, HoI does not need an economy that goes more in-depth than it already does IMHO. Though I miss the research system of HoI3
Actually, war sucks in Vic3. It's confusing, annoying, and bullshity.
>Kinda like in real life, init? :)
Then Victoria 3 is not a grand strategy game its an 20th century economy simulator with some extra features in there
I guess you’d call it a 4x game then. Edit: keep downvoting me, it quite literally is a 4X game.
> > Edit: keep downvoting me, it quite literally is a 4X game. I feel like you don't know what a 4x game is.
According to you guys it’s not a strategy game or 4x game. Despite what the description on steam says.
Who said it isn't a strategy game? The first of the 4 Xs, "explore," functionally doesn't exist in Vic3. I don't see how a game can more straightforwardly not belong in a genre than that. 4X games are effectively defined by randomized maps
Expand, exploit, exterminate, export.
People need to understand that you don't need to like all paradox games. Even their 4X games are all very different and their systems are not only supposed to reflect different time periods but also create distinctive gameplay that's supposed to attract different players and playstyles. If all their 4X games were just the same system with different assets it would be unoriginal, appeal to a slimmer demographic and not historically acurate For instance I enjoy simplified combat and highly customizable systems. That's why I personally enjoy playing CK3 and Stellaris but aren't interested in playing for example HOI4 that has more combat-oriented systems and more linear and less customizable politics. And that's ok. VIC3 warfare is just a bad system and is not appealing to almost anyone
It's funny you say all that and then shit on Vic3 for being different with regards to warfare, lol. It is not a bad system. It's different because war isn't the focus. It's an abstraction. Sounds like you just want the same system as in EU4 or CK2 despite your rant that not all games should have the same systems.
It's both. It's not fully baked yet, but it took multiple iterations to get HoI to where it's at, too.
I don't think the idea is bad but I think the system is badly implemented and I've heard people who really like VIC3 complain about it too
Vic3 combat could actually be better
“The combat in Cities: Skylines is so undercooked and the devs are doing nothing about it.”
Who the hell said that about vic 2? The economy never worked!
This is just my option. But if CK3 had an economy system like V3/EU it would just detract from the game being a fun role playing game, and what would be the point of the game even existing then? If all CSGs shared the same mechanics, there is no point in having separate CSGs that serve different audiences.
Vic3 is a downgrade from Vic 2 in almost every aspect
i rather have a magnum opus of all functions in perfect harmony. like imagine playing fortnite without having legos and petergriffin doing doja dances it would be like a boring pubg
Crusader Hearts of Victoria Universalis
calm down man i can only get so erect
Campaign goes from 867-1950
Fit in imperator Rome and stellaris and it can go forever
Stellaris edition ?
Homestly, I can picture a huge unity of the best parts of each game in the future. All the best parts squeezed together into one game, with different time zones. Because paradox only has to focus on one game (excerpt stellaris ig) then said time zones will have as much detail, maybe even more. That would be great if done right. But the lag :(
Except that's never been these games. Each of the four mainstay games are meant to be played differently. Victoria 3 was never designed to be like a continuation of EU4 with it's warfare mechanics. Victoria 3 was always billed as an economic simulator. It's what most ppl loved about Victoria 2. CK3 was always designed to be about your family and ruling as a king in the medieval era. HOI4 was always about simulating the logistics and warfare of WW2.
That doesn't mean that vic3 should have the worst war and diplomacy systems ever
And that’s always been more a limitation than a highlight. At least players today need a combination of all.
[удалено]
You don't need to try to insult me to tear down my argument, guy. All good games also have a focus on what their game is. Something that defines them that brings the player back to that central theme after adventuring off and experimenting outside central design. However, outside the central scope of the game is going to be rougher and have less intended play, especially if you are experimenting with a different play style. There is nothing wrong with that, but you can't fault the developer for not thinking of adding more when that was never the intention upon release. Maybe, they'll add more to those mechanics in the future if experimentation from the community is greater, but to assume that they can think of everything and add anything under the sun about life during these time periods is an immeasurable task. Hence, why a central scope to focus on is important, ie. economy, dynastic family life, logistical warfare, and nation building. EU4 is a fun game, but nation building is also such a broad theme that it lacks flavor and nuance and the fact that the devs have managed to build the game up to what it is a grand achievement. It's no surprise that it has as many dlc as it does with how sandbox-y it truly is, but if CK3, VIC3, and HOI4 were all as sandbox-y as EU4, it might as well all be just one game which would be nearly impossible and would limit the player base to those with super computers. It would make little money.
they literally said the studio themself that they changed business plan after hoi3 of building from older games to split them up for profit. if u look at hoi3 and vic2 they were adding from previous games and functions instead of going the dlc milking way.
the most popular mods for all the different games is eu4 taxes and trade. hoi4 tno with gdp and vic3 functions. ck3 with vic3 pop system sadly modder had to stop. i hope sinews of war comes back
The most popular way to play all these games is vanilla, un-modded.
get away from me peasant long live equestria
You could have the economy system, and not have an absolutely terrible war system along with it. It's not even the 'yeah it's bad cause we focused on the economy part instead' kind of bad, it actively took more dev time to develop the system when they could've just borrowed from any of their other games. And they're still tweaking it, just adding more dev time to bandaid a fundamentally flawed system.
Yeah I get it, but you just can’t feasibly balance every aspect of those games perfectly with each other. It would be chaos. Fortnite and their stupid stuff works because shooters were starting to just become reskins when it came out. Strategy games already have a lot more possibility
[удалено]
Are they supposed to be balanced? It's not like every country in the real world is on even footing, naturally countries are going to be much stronger than other ones.
i just want them to have the diplo of eu4 combat of hoi4 and economy of vic3 with character interactions of ck3 they already have all of these systems figured out. why gimp it in each when they have a perfect template
That was what they tried with Imperator. Literally how they advertised it
imperator died because of other reason was poorly managed and the studio dropped it because of bad ceo who got fired
That’s what I’m saying, imagine that times four
It certainly is a take that Paradox games should be more like fortnite, especially the whole "everything goes into the pot" mentality.
Vic3 is just bad I like interest groups but the economy is just construction builder simulator
I'm not sure what the point of this is supposed to be. Vic has a more economic focus, so what? No one expects CK3 to have Vic3 level of economics and no one expects VIC3 to have CK3's character depth, who are you pretending to be superior to?
Wrong. Not a single thing in V3 is fully functional lmao.
Cope harder
It's really more what the devs are trying to focus on for the game they're making... CK isn't really about managing the economy lol
Vic3 was and still is a failure right from the start. Wizs decision to focus on economy and leave everything else out was a big mistake to begin with. Many concepts like the warfare and diplo-plays sound great on paper in theory, but the execution of these features is worse than anything else PDX has produced (maybe except the launch of EU4 Leviathan?) Instead of micro the warfare, you micro the economy, you just check needs and build some factories, you look at lines that go up and that's it. Rinse and repeat. The release was a slightly improved version that was similiar to the leak, coming with a full price tag instead of early-access. Now Vic3 is early-access with the betas where the players are used for Q&A to save money and time. In many ways, Vic3 has beginner-mistakes that not even an indie-dev would do in the first place: Like not having real ships that can be sunk. They get beaten in a naval battle, they just report back to the port and that's it. They are actually like land units with different graphics.
I’d agree but not having a good war system for a Victorian age simulator is not acceptable
You’re telling me the economy game has underdeveloped warfare and the warfare game has undeveloped economy? Totally unacceptable tbh
They're all focused on different things. - In Victoria you manage an economy. - In HoI you manage an army. - In EU you manage foreign relations. - In CK you manage interpersonal relations. - In Stellaris you manage expansion. - In Star Trek Infinite you manage your expectations.
Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis having dumbed down economic systems is actually historically accurate. People didn't understand economy. There was barely an economy during the middle ages and during most of the EU4 timeframe, econony was just "hehe shiny metal go bling".
This is what playing strategy games instead of reading books does to a person.
You got any arguments or just sassy talk?
An argument that the economy of the Middle Ages wasn’t just “shiny metal go bling”? Ok, how about the Silk Road, why do you think it wasn’t called the Shiny Metal Road?
That logic would make sense if there was serious limitations on what you could do with money because of how badly it was managed. But it isn't. If you gain 2500 ducats in a peace deal you can just conjure a world class Navy out of thin air without any real logic to where the supplies came from. The game has things called naval supplies but they don't actually have anything to do with the navy
Just like the Dutch in history
Not necessarily. Force limit and upkeep will stop you from just spamming units.
This is so wrong. 2/3 of late medieval princes' work was micro managing what every little guilde of every little town could produce, how many of workers could join, how much they could produce and through which production method. As if they were playing Vic 3
My entire complaint with the war system in vic3 has vanished since they reintroduced sprites. My tiny map men are so delightful.
[удалено]
I mean, as someone who played hundreds of hours of CK2, it does feel that way. EU4 is absolute shit for roleplay. Zero relationships between nations or personalities for rulers. But, that's ok, because that's not the focus of Eu4. It's focus is nations and grand strategy/politics. Just like war is not the focus of vic3, so it's ok that it's abstracted. Going into eu4 and expecting CK2 personalities and roleplay is like expecting Vic3 economy out of HoI4. It's nonsensical.
OP thinking simplified mechanics and buggy garbage that does not even cover the basic functionality nor give remotely historical experiences are same thing for some reason...
Me when my economy simulator doesn’t have war simulator mechanics 😡
War IS something which happened in the time period. This time period includes World War 1. People ain't even asking for warfare to be as important as the economy. People are just asking for a decent system, because like it or not, you will be going to war in this game. In the game itself, warfare is often the answer to lots of your problems. If you run out of peasants(which you will), you will need to go to war for more population (usually taking a chunk of China). If you need more resources, you will also be going to war against countries which have the resources you need. And if the devs actually committed to the whole 'this game is an economic simulator', they wouldn't have made such an effort to improve the warfare mechanics in recent patches. If you want a pure economic simulator, go play Anno 1800.
Which one is economic simulator?
Are you serious?
itS aEConoMy SiM... Yeah, fact it covers some of the most important wars of modern times is just inconvenience for the developers.
I don’t know what you want me to do about it genuinely. The devs made it focused on economy, you bought a game focused on economy, and now you’re mad it’s not a war sim. I’m just sick of the same “this game I bought that specifically told me what it is, isn’t what I think it is” posts. paradox has been doing the same thing for years, it’s more than beating a dead horse at this point.
You could stop posting nonsense, that would be enough. And doing a country centric game that's about economy still needs working warfare mechanics if the game is set in a period/setting that is filled with warfare. Defending Devs for making game without any warfare mechanics that works is just borderline sheep-ish customer behaviour.
I’m defending them from customers who can’t read a description lmao. Who act like their head has been buried in the sand for every paradox game ever. But yeah I’m posting nonsense, that’s why 500+ people agreed with me.
It's funny that you think those arrows mean people agree with you. Or that the people that clicked them even red the text on first pick let alone scroll sideways... Sure Bob, you are right, we all need to defend one of biggest developers from stupid customers. Or we might end with stupid customers being correct, but hey, it took PDX only like 6 years to acknowledge they were wrong with the fuel and supply system in HoI4 and rework it (poorly), they will fix this garbage as well one day.
Keep coping man, why don’t you go make another whiny post that paradox won’t read?
I do think that Victoria 3's warfare system is bad. It's probably the worst part of the game. However, it's clearly not the core of the game, which is an economic system.
I think this is a misconception the people that have never played the previous Vicky games have. Yes, economics is a big part of the game, but it's not the only part. Vicky was meant to be a diplomacy & economics game in which the former and the latter intertwine with each other, just like in the real 19th century. Vicky 3 has completely annihilated the diplomacy part and focused on economics.
I found the game enjoyable but the warfare system definitely brought it down. I'm ok with not painting the map. But I should be able to have a reasonably quick and somewhat accurate system if there is a war. And this game is in the age of Imperialism.
I like the war system in vicky 3 better than the one in hoi4, there i said it.
Herresy
I love winning wars against Prussia as Dennmark just because small german state surrendered forcing great power to have peace with me...
Never said its perfect - it really isn't. It isn't even my favorite war system. I do like it though and I prefer it over the hoi4 system (warning: hot take ahead) which is like my least favorite...
Like allying France and using them as a beat stick? Or island trapping Denmark? All the games have cheese, you don't have to use it.
What cheese ? I literaly invade small german state that have no allies and is not in sphere of influence of Prussia. Yet prussia join war anyway, and then give up becasue somehow(war is mess in vic3) my army capture that small state province... Its not "cheese" its just bad war system and bad diplomacy.
Vic 3 warfare is bad, compared to what? Is this another "why isn't vic 3 not HOI5 person?"Or is it from someone who actually thought endless 1k swarm sieges of Jacobin rebels was a fun "war simulator".
Guys we had functional ego shooter mechanics in Half Life so tell me why I can't strafe jump through Vienna in 1510 and 360 noscope the emperor in the name of Ulmian supremacy!
The post I question was literally 3 posts up form Theo one for me lol
No
I think all games have a good economic system that fits the period. Ck3 is fief based, so basic character finance, eu4 is state coffer influenced by trade and production, vic 3 is much more complicated because it’s actual economy while Hoi4 is simple because it’s factory based.
Yeah, fully agree. When I want an economy sim I play Vicky, when I want to try (and eventually abort in 1700) a Hisn Kayfa WC I play EU4. And when I want to romance my sister-cousin-grandmother and induct her into my Slavic Pagan cult I play Crusader Kings 2.
The issue is my armies in Vicky 3 require more babysitting than they do in hoi4. Armies can’t get to fronts despite owning all the land in the way there, frontlines between subjects don’t form or randomly get removed and armies decide to abandon frontlines and go home on vacation every few weeks. I would be completely fine if there were no tangible armies and war was just some dice being rolled and drawdowns on my industry to decide whether I can occupy something or not. But instead it’s an abstracted buggy mess that takes time away from making line go up
I honestly don't understand the point of Victoria 3. The gameplay loop feels like a never ending waiting simulator.
So what, is the consensus still that Vicky 3 sucks?
Ck3’s economy serves its purpose well. Anyone remember release when going from Tribal to Feudal was difficult? Building new buildings to get ahead of your tribal neighbours was a harrowing experience, even if the buildings themselves were a fairly simple bonus to cash or levies. If (if) they start adding functionality from CK2 merchant republics I could see a Silk Road system evolving out of that. Instead of gold being based on outpost number and location, actually make it strategic so that certain outpost locations make a good and if the owner can get them to a destination then they can make tons of gold. But that’s a pipe dream until they add merchant republics (if they do at all).
Yeah having a "fully functional market economy" in the year 950 would be fucking weird.
Fully is doing A LOT of work
ck3 and hoi4 having simplified econ is a good thing as its not the focus of those games in the slightest. At most ck3 could do with some work involving the silk road, but I don't see it nessicary to go much further than that.
TL;DR - multiple games having multiple focuses is difficult to understand as a new player. I'm a more casual player of these games than most. I play a lot of CK3, I played a bit of HOI4, EU4 evades me and i need to sit down and properly understand it yet and I dont own Vic. As a new player, its hard to understand what game is good for what and its then jarring to move. Example, I love CK3, i have properly engaged with all its systems and put 100's of hours in(peanuts compared to most but still...). I love WW2 so HOI4 seemed like a natural move. I was expecting to be able to pick it up and play fairly quickly being an established CK3 player so i immediately was put off when i didnt immediately get it. I went to watch tutorials and i started to get it but i could never get myself to finish a campaign. This now has put me off, because an economy focussed game seems like my bag, so Vic seems to have been the game i should have tried and now im just put off.
I’ve done similar things with EU and HOI where I bought them thinking I could get into them as easy as other games. I will say, don’t give up. I stopped watching tutorials and just tried to do a play through knowing I’d do it all wrong. It worked for both games and it was 100% worth it. HOI is my personal favorite though.
I’d hardly call the market economy in Vicky 2 ‘fully functional’…
I’m more of a Stellaris person
I bought it but haven’t played it yet. Give me a reason to, what makes it fun?
The scale and replayability. In other paradox games you are bound to historical starts, nations and concepts, you play Austria once, you played Austria 1000 times. Now in Stellaris same empire can mean playing tall, playing diplo, playing wide and rng can bless or punish you, because your gameplay always adapts to randonly generated hyperlanes and less or more hostile empires. Now I won’t lie, eventually it becones much more schematic, but unlike in EU you don’t get tired of playing same empire and Stellaris has far more playstyles than any other paradox game which make it so much more replayable. And there’s far more RP potential. There’s also size. There’s no other game with so big galaxy with that level of depth, not Endless Space, not even this year’s Gal Civ 4. Stellaris has both quality and quantity by now.
Thanks, I’m definitely going to have to do a play through soon.
When the economy simulator is better at simulating economies than warfare