Grand Strategy Victoria 3

[Delterius]

Since they said that provinces are still captured as part of a front line, there is probably some low level simulation like that going on, but not to the extent of HoI4 and having the AI move physical units around.

I'm amused to see how the reception here is largely "yeah that's a good idea", while the reddit and pdx forums were in a civil war after the diary went live. Some people just really don't want to let go of unit-driven gameplay.

codex victoria fans are the last hurrah of the true codex

 

[Malakal]

Since they said that provinces are still captured as part of a front line, there is probably some low level simulation like that going on, but not to the extent of HoI4 and having the AI move physical units around.

I'm amused to see how the reception here is largely "yeah that's a good idea", while the reddit and pdx forums were in a civil war after the diary went live. Some people just really don't want to let go of unit-driven gameplay.

They were going this way and direction with front lines in HoI4 already.

That idea could work in theory if they fix AI enough to do stuff it doesn't do well or at all in HoI4 - random unit movement and repositioning ruining entrenchment, naval invasions.

I remain skeptical until they deliver but the idea by itself, especially in a economy focused game, isn't bad.

 

[FreeKaner]

They were going this way and direction with front lines in HoI4 already.

That idea could work in theory if they fix AI enough to do stuff it doesn't do well or at all in HoI4 - random unit movement and repositioning ruining entrenchment, naval invasions.

I remain skeptical until they deliver but the idea by itself, especially in a economy focused game, isn't bad.

There aren't going to be units to move randomly or to reposition, so that's not an issue.

 

[Malakal]

They were going this way and direction with front lines in HoI4 already.

That idea could work in theory if they fix AI enough to do stuff it doesn't do well or at all in HoI4 - random unit movement and repositioning ruining entrenchment, naval invasions.

I remain skeptical until they deliver but the idea by itself, especially in a economy focused game, isn't bad.

There aren't going to be units to move randomly or to reposition, so that's not an issue.

I could trade divisions/brigades for aesthetically pleasing armies on the map in some form, to give me inner general vibes.

 

[thesheeep]

There aren't going to be units to move randomly or to reposition, so that's not an issue.

There might still be - just not visible or accessible to the player.
Hard to say, really.

 

[FreeKaner]

I could trade divisions/brigades for aesthetically pleasing armies on the map in some form, to give me inner general vibes.

There are probably going to be visuals for troops on the map / fronts, since there seems to be visuals even for trains. Just there isn't going to be clickable stacks of troops on the map as far as I understand the dev post on the forum.

There aren't going to be units to move randomly or to reposition, so that's not an issue.

There might still be - just not visible or accessible to the player.
Hard to say, really.

If they just made it eu4 / CK2 sort of thing except the player doesn't control the stacks it would be horrendous, as far as I understand it will basically a bit like HoI4's naval and air combat systems, except more detailed in terms of what you control and how you control it.

 

[what am i doing]

I'm amused to see how the reception here is largely "yeah that's a good idea", while the reddit and pdx forums were in a civil war after the diary went live. Some people just really don't want to let go of unit-driven gameplay.

Personally, I slightly despise the combat and unit management in V2. This is mostly because it's so clunky compared to, say, HoI4 - there are no division templates, maintaining a front line so the AI doesn't flood into your country (late game) is a nuisance, rebels breaking your stacks apart is infuriating since you have to rebuild them by hand, etc. Would I prefer V3 combat over HoI4? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it'll be infinitely better than V2 combat even if it's just "HoI4 air/naval zones but for land".

 

[Sranchammer]

I wonder how they will implement raiding

 

[HeroMarine]

I wonder how they'll implement the Jewish Question.

 

[Tyrr]

Not sure in what Pardox thread to post this. Maybe this because it could effect games in development the most.
Things are not looking good at Paradox.

 

[Delterius]

^From what I understand they already cancelled a bunch of unannounced projects, trying to focus more strongly on 'proven niches'. Writers will say 'obviously that means strategy games', I'm not so sure if that's all it means. The number of projects involved, cancelled and otherwise, is a bit loopy unless Paradox is counting every feckin' DLC as a project. Which I think they do. I don't think core projects like Vicky 3 are a in danger. It's a plain fact that they refuse to outright cancel Bloodlines 2 (probably due to the pre-orders involved). The bigger question I have is about their california studio and their branching towards simulation games. A few years ago they had the Sims 2+3 director going around, doing vague interview about Sims and an unannounced project. I'd imagine something that has as much potential as Cities Skylines wouldn't get cancelled but who knows.

 

[Sinilevä]

Ahhh what a company. Imagine shitting the bed despite having no competition.

 

[Malakal]

Ahhh what a company. Imagine shitting the bed despite having no competition.

I kindly point out to the very ambitious 'let mod teams dev their games on our engine' project and such.

Sometimes its literally not their fault shit fails.

 

[Hace El Oso]

I kindly point out to the very ambitious 'let mod teams dev their games on our engine' project and such.

Sometimes its literally not their fault shit fails.

Wasn’t the last gasp of that program ‘East vs. West’? Ancient history, as far as nu-Paradox is concerned.

 

[Malakal]

I kindly point out to the very ambitious 'let mod teams dev their games on our engine' project and such.

Sometimes its literally not their fault shit fails.

Wasn’t the last gasp of that program ‘East vs. West’? Ancient history, as far as nu-Paradox is concerned.

Sure, just saying they did try a lot of stuff, in good faith I assume.

Then we had mistakes like "March of the Eagles" and such.

 

[Sinilevä]

Ahhh what a company. Imagine shitting the bed despite having no competition.

I kindly point out to the very ambitious 'let mod teams dev their games on our engine' project and such.

Sometimes its literally not their fault shit fails.

I only remember Magna Mundi and East vs. West. But that's like Hace El Oso pointed out was ages ago during the time when paradox didn't suck that hard and haven't abandoned their main audience yet.

 

[ferratilis]

Yeesh. Thanks for saving me 60 bucks.

Spoiler

 

[Tyrr]

Yeesh. Thanks for saving me 60 bucks.

Spoiler

Community management is always a great place for companies to increase their diversity quota. Because these jobs require no skills or talent.
That why they are always full of SJW weirdos. An obvious side effect of this are the moderation policies on all the official company platforms (forums, etc.).

 

[Mark.L.Joy]

If they still have programmer chained in basement to do any actual work something might just come out, but in between all the dilation breaks I fear they'll forget to feed to poor sap.

 

[Sranchammer]

Imagine telling Bismarck that 170 years from now green-haired women and soy boi socialist radicals would be developing strategy games based on his time.

 

[HeroMarine]

Imagine telling Bismarck that 170 years from now green-haired women and soy boi socialist radicals would be developing strategy games based on his time.

In fairness, Bismark lived before Germany lost two world wars.

I can totally see wicked "intelligensia" all over Europe (and some in America) at the time being happy with our degenerate clown world. These lunatics, for a Russian example: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/10/suicide-of-the-liberals

 

[FreeKaner]

In fairness, Bismark lived before Germany lost two world wars.

I can totally see wicked "intelligensia" all over Europe (and some in America) at the time being happy with our degenerate clown world. These lunatics, for a Russian example: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/10/suicide-of-the-liberals

All of this emotional appeal sensationalist drivel can be answered by a single sentence, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Violent revolution cannot be controlled, it continues violently until it reaches political equilibrium. Political equilibrium under violent revolution then tends to be reached under extreme governance. This has been always the history of violent revolution.

Key problem and the reason for why Russia underwent such a violent revolution was Nicholas II, an abhorrent statesman and an even worse monarch. Who forget that all states, be it tribal chiefdoms, feudal kingdoms, modern states or even autocratic monarchies are built on compromise. A monarch in Russia, which has always kept its level of compromise low against its populations, then couldn't even win a war, had to understand something has to give.

Nicholas II even after the 1906-1907 revolutions refused to give any actual rights to parliament or even accept and confirm the most basic material rights of the population. Parliament wasn't given even any right to appoint even the most powerless ministers, moreover Nicholas dissolved the parliament after as basic suggestions as land reforms and establishment of worker unions. If the monarch refuses to even accept the most basic reforms and dissolves the parliament immediately at the suggestion of any compromise then why would anyone, including the liberal bourgeoise who benefit most from status quo, agree to give any loyalty to that monarch?

In such case, liberal bourgeoise, who rightly didn't compromise despite having their interests in status quo were not the instigators but merely the casualties of Nicholas II's sheer incompetence as a statesman. Having neither legitimacy nor prestige to be uncompromising as he was as a monarch, low on political and social capital, went ahead to not even give an inch, an inch that would have likely improved the general economic situation of Russia for both the general workers and liberals. The general population was given neither bread nor circuses, moreover even the demands for basic reforms to improve their material situation alongside with the upper classes was met with a harsh rejection and political oppression. Like cornered animals who saw no inch will be given except that which is taken violently, violence became the only legitimate force in Russia. Rest is history.

If the liberals of Russia back then were seen as collaborating with Nicholas, especially because it was against their own material interest to, likely they would have had it even worse than they had in the revolutions, where they ended up continuing their lives. If the clergy instead of being the advocate of the people to the monarchy becomes advocate of the monarchy to the people it also finds it at same situation as those liberals. There is only one lesson to be learned here and it is for the elite and the clergy, that is if they refuse to even pretend to improve the general material condition of people to not sacrifice even an ounce of their power and wealth, even in short term, they may find themselves at the end of a wave of violence that listens to no reason and will resort to all types of excess.

When revolution comes to point of violence, when the general population feels themselves both wronged and only way out insurrection and only legitimate form of power violence there can be no longer be justice or compromise, only revenge and destruction.

 

[HeroMarine]

All of this emotional appeal sensationalist drivel can be answered by a single sentence:

Nicholas II, an abhorrent statesman and an even worse monarch

Kebabs will kebab

 

[Space Satan]

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #24 - Navies and Admirals

• Thread starterlachek
• Start dateWednesday at 14:59

16_9 (5).jpg
The Concept of War and many of the core mechanics presented in Fronts and Generals, so ensure those are fresh in your mind before reading on!

Your ability to sustain an empire depends, to a large extent, on how well you can compete on the high seas. This is the era of truly global trade, which also meant countries were highly susceptible to disruption of that trade - and the higher they climb, the harder they may fall. In Victoria 3, maintaining a powerful blue-water navy is a large but necessary expense if you wish to ensure the integrity of your markets, overseas colonies, and trade routes during war. And even while at peace, a magnificent fleet can provide your nation with substantial Prestige!

Our design intent for naval gameplay in Victoria 3 is that it should serve as a strategic precision instrument in conflicts between seafaring nations. The sea is not another “front” in a war. The province-based moving Front system works well to represent conflicts over territory but would be nonsensical at sea, where no nation can be said to meaningfully “control” an enormous stretch of ocean. Instead, Admirals and their Flotillas are deployed to meet specific strategic objectives to disrupt the enemy’s military operations or economy, or defend against such attempts by the enemy. A powerful navy can never win you the war on its own, but if deployed correctly under the right circumstances it can be the “ace in the hole” that lets you outsmart even a foe that’s superior on paper.

A clipper departing Luanda in the Portuguese colonial state of North Angola, representing the colony’s connection to the Market Capital in Lisbon.
dd24-1.jpg
dd24-2.jpg
lachek · Nov 17, 2021 at 14:59

" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; max-width: 100%; cursor: pointer;">

Convoy Raid and Naval Invasion are aggressive orders intended to hurt the enemy in different ways, while Intercept and Patrol are defensive orders that counter the other two. But to really understand how these work we have to start by talking about Shipping Lanes and the Supply Network.

Shipping Lanes are facilitated by vessels called Convoys, which are an output of Port buildings. These are created automatically whenever it’s necessary to move goods and/or people overseas. The three main reasons this happens are due to naval Trade Routes between non-adjacent markets, remote States connecting to their Market through a Port, and Battalions sent to frontlines that can only be supplied by ship. When a player is about to take an action that establishes such a shipping lane they are warned of how many new Convoys would be required for this action, which is based on the size of the route or the army supplied.

Shipping Lanes are always established via the shortest possible path, as defined by the number of nodes in the naval network it passes through.

A zoomed-out view of the North Angolan shoreline above, showing the main route ships travel off the coast of southwest Africa. The yellow pin indicates this path is part of Portugal’s Supply Network.
dd24-3.jpg
dd24-4.jpg
lachek · Nov 17, 2021 at 14:59

" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; max-width: 100%; cursor: pointer;">

Admirals assigned to Patrol a certain stretch of their Supply Network will eventually be able to detect and engage the raiding navy, causing a naval battle to ensue which will not only sink ships but also send the losing side back to base for repairs for some time. Admirals assigned to Intercept all nodes along a coastline are able to do the same to any raiders along the coast. Convoy Raiding right outside a major entry/exit port, such as in the English Channel, therefore has the chance to seriously disrupt a large number of shipping lanes but also put you at greater risk of detection and interception than if you’re raiding transatlantic shipping lanes on the deep seas. The composition of your navy can also greatly impact how this plays out: a fleet with an accompaniment of Submarines can deal more damage before being intercepted, while a fleet of Monitors has an easier time intercepting raiders but may be more easily sunk if faced down by a more powerful navy.

Because the distance Admirals must patrol plays a difference, there is an inherent asymmetry to Convoy Raiding and Patrol orders. Since a chain is only as strong as its weakest link the damage done to a shipping lane by raiders is the same whether it stretches across 1 node or 10, whereas 10x as many Flotillas are needed to protect the longer route as effectively as the shorter.

Extremely unfinished breakdown of what is currently happening in the Macaronesian Sea. Look at all those juicy raiding targets!

Naval Invasion is an Order you give to provide naval support for a General’s landing on an enemy coastline. The size of the fleet determines two things: one, how great is the chance that you’ll be able to defeat an opponent’s intercepting fleet, and two, how many Battalions will you be able to successfully land. Even if the enemy has no defensive fleet at all, a naval invasion with a very small fleet might land too weak of an initial force to withstand the enemy’s counter-offense before the rest of the army can arrive. Since Naval Invasion is a one-time Order, once it has been completed it automatically turns into a Patrol Order to protect the shipping lane supplying the new Front.

Concept art of early Ship-of-the-Line and late-game Dreadnought class vessels
dd24-6.jpg
dd24-7.jpg
lachek · Nov 17, 2021 at 14:59

" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; max-width: 100%; cursor: pointer;">

Before we wrap up for this week, I want to say a few words about the lack of an order to just “seek out and destroy enemy forces”. In Victoria 3, your commanders - Generals as well as Admirals - are given strategic objectives which they use their manpower and resources to carry out as best they can. If in the process they get into conflict with the enemy’s forces (as they almost certainly will at some point) a battle will ensue. The outcome of that battle determines which direction the war proceeds in. The intent of this is to remove the need to babysit your commanders.

To illustrate this, assume we did have an order to seek and destroy. The optimal choice would then be to assign this order only to the strongest commander, fight the eventual battle, then revoke this order and give it to another commander while the first one recuperates, and so on.

With an order like “advance front” instead, the General’s intention is simply to capture territory as efficiently as possible, ideally while avoiding enemy interference. If it’s impossible to avoid the enemy, the imperative is to try to be intercepted by as weak of an enemy force as possible. Meanwhile the intent behind “defend front” is the opposite: prevent enemy incursions by defending it in the places where the enemy might advance, bringing to bear as powerful a force as possible. Similarly at sea, “convoy raiding” is about maximizing shipping lane damage while avoiding detection, while “patrol” is about minimizing damage to convoys by seeking out and destroying those enemy ships attacking them - not to sink ships for its own sake.

Depending on how the war is developing your priorities or overall strategy might certainly shift, causing you to change the orders you’ve assigned or make changes in your ranks to distribute resources differently. But our design intent is that this should only be necessary because your strategy is evolving, not to counter enemy movements or try to minmax your way to victory.

This is an especially important consideration for the naval part of the warfare mechanics. Naval (and aerial) warfare in strategy games commonly face the design challenge of extreme mobility options due to the lack of obstacles to movement. Usually some form of Fog of War and interception-radius mechanics is employed to counteract turtling behavior. The AI also often has to be forced to make mistakes to not become too good at dodging or intercepting the player in this environment. Even with Victoria 3’s more strategic-level decision making, the freedom of “movement” the sea provides would make a system where being in/avoiding being in the same location as the enemy so as to start/not start a battle extremely micro-heavy, annoying, and highly unfair to either human or AI players depending on implementation.

So instead, in Victoria 3, you tell your Admirals what their overall priorities should be for the war and then they try to do that, using the resources they’ve been allocated, only coming into conflict when they become aware of an enemy Admiral with an order that clashes with their own.

I hope that gives you a good idea of what to expect from the naval mechanics in Victoria 3. Next week we will wrap up this first batch of diaries on the military system by going through the many economic impacts of warfare in Victoria 3. Until then!

 

[Norfleet]

Meanwhile the intent behind “defend front” is the opposite: prevent enemy incursions by defending it in the places where the enemy might advance, bringing to bear as powerful a force as possible. Similarly at sea, “convoy raiding” is about maximizing shipping lane damage while avoiding detection, while “patrol” is about minimizing damage to convoys by seeking out and destroying those enemy ships attacking them - not to sink ships for its own sake.

This notion sort of misses out on the fact that there was an entire doctrine of the era aimed at not "avoiding detection", but rather, to deliberately cause a decisive battle. Where's our option to pursue Mahanian doctrine?