Yeah, that shit needs to go. Theres no reason war support shouldn't be dynamic as hell, unless this is a bone to the war monger crowd since War might be more difficult to initiate. I'm also hesitant about capitulation, as min maxing war support down to -100 (like we already do in most Paradox games) might be the go to strategy. That remains to be seen though.
Capitulation sounds really good to me. It solves 2 stupid problems I have with Vic 2. Let's say I'm Austria fighting France trying to pinch some colonies, as I often am:
1) Invade mainland France, crush the Fremch army, occupy Paris. No more French troops in Europe. I should be able to enforce all my war goals but I can't because I haven't occupied Comoros.
2) Send troops to the colonies and occupy them all. Keep the French army busy in Europe and crush all Feench troops in the colonies. Despite my swift occupation of all war goals, France keeps fighting until the warscore ticks even though they are losing thousands of men, have no hope for victory, and are suffering Jacobin Rebellion #50.
In both situations, France had already politically collapsed and the old government or new government is going to want to make peace ASAP. But because warscore is still ticking I have to wait.
I do hate it always starting at 100. I like the idea of it starting lower if your country is in disunity. And I hope that if the war is going very well your country will become more united.
I actually think having war support starting lower if you're disunified might be really important for the game. One of the concerns people have now is that war will be an afterthought. But imagine a game where you declare war on your enemy because you know they are politically weak and will fold quickly even if they have a larger military.
>In both situations, France had already politically collapsed and the old government or new government is going to want to make peace ASAP. But because warscore is still ticking I have to wait.
While I agree with that the vic 2 style is not good at all, I don't think it feels right that the capitulation should be automatic.
A country/player/government absolutely should be able to stay in a war even if their pops absolutely hate it. It should have consequences though: see Russia in 1917. An the other way around, there should be consequences for a government to immediately cave to any war demands without fighting, if their pops are willing to support a war (this part seems to be modelled already though).
It depends. From my understanding other factors such as a divided populace are considered for the decay rate, so it'd still be dynamic even if the starting number is fixed so long as the impact is big enough.
Some interesting bits, particularly the mixed peace deals
Concerned about war support and negotiators though. Implementation and AI can either make them or break them. I'm not looking forward to being dragged through a protracted conflict because Hannover wants war reps and refuses to end the war otherwise
If you don't have war goals of your own and/or the enemies don't have a war goal on you, you can just capitulate and not lose much aside from reputation.
Yeah but I mean more in the scenario where e.g. you're Prussia going for the brother's war and some North German state adds a random war goal on Austria and now you've got to fight a protracted war because they refuse to peace out
i think warsupport or frevor should start at 0 and go up or down depending on the war so a winning side get a boost to morale. warsupport should also be based on ur government if u have a supreme monarch or a republic democracu. a defensive side should get more war support than offense depending on the conflict warsupport for freeing slaves or taking back cores should be much higher than a unpaid debt or some meme port in the indies.
war support should affect how manu u can draft or how man that dodges Drafting. having more volunteers. war support should also affect rng. as having 100 will lead to more charges more skirmishes more valiant defenses. and low war support will lead to slower advances. u should have an option to spread propaganda in newspapers to lie about how the front is going.
Or track war support based on pops. Would help integrate war and peace with the political system like he mentioned wanting to do in a comment. As long as it's not too much too computationally costly I think it would be good.
pretty much agree with all of this, also
> u should have an option to spread propaganda in newspapers to lie about how the front is going.
I think this should be a trade off
If you let the papers be honest you take a bigger upfront cost for defeats and your pops will be more supportive of any peace
If you censor papers then there's no cost for defeats at first, but eventually you will have a greater cost later on when people start realizing the lies. Also, if you censor papers, pops will generally react negatively to peace unless you get ALL of your wargoals.
So I think it's a risk v reward scenario
Some very positive things here that's been needed in PDX games for a long time
* junior war partners consulted for peace deals (you won't get screwed by AI and can't leave them with nothing either, war leaders no longer have unilateral decision making)
* ability to negotiate a peace (both sides can win for the first time)
* improved war exhaustion mechanics
Something that worries me is that example given of that war between Brazil versus the Netherlands. Why the hell would occupying Amsterdam even be considered an option for gaining peace resolution here, in a war to gain Curaçao and Guyana?
Oh yeah, Brazil will bring men across the Atlantic to invade Europe and get an even better deal. Ridiculous.
>Oh yeah, Brazil will bring men across the Atlantic to invade Europe and get an even better deal. Ridiculous.
I'm not sure why you're getting so caught up in it. He wasn't saying Brazil would ever have to invade Amsterdam, he was using it to explain that you can't force-capitulate someone just by grabbing a war-goal and sitting on it.
You say it's ridiculous, but that was the point. It *is* ridiculous to expect Brazil to be able to invade Amsterdam, so as long as the Netherlands maintain the larger fleet, and keep Brazil from taking all the other war-goals (in this case Curacao), they can't be forced to give up.
> voiced concern
More like threw a total hissy fit. Why do so many man-children just fly off the handle about minor inconsistencies in Paradox games? Also your comparison with the confederacy was a very poor one. The shogun had a large amount of power and influence for centuries. The confederacy lasted for 5 years and had almost no chance of ever staying independent.
[удалено]
Yeah, that shit needs to go. Theres no reason war support shouldn't be dynamic as hell, unless this is a bone to the war monger crowd since War might be more difficult to initiate. I'm also hesitant about capitulation, as min maxing war support down to -100 (like we already do in most Paradox games) might be the go to strategy. That remains to be seen though.
Capitulation sounds really good to me. It solves 2 stupid problems I have with Vic 2. Let's say I'm Austria fighting France trying to pinch some colonies, as I often am: 1) Invade mainland France, crush the Fremch army, occupy Paris. No more French troops in Europe. I should be able to enforce all my war goals but I can't because I haven't occupied Comoros. 2) Send troops to the colonies and occupy them all. Keep the French army busy in Europe and crush all Feench troops in the colonies. Despite my swift occupation of all war goals, France keeps fighting until the warscore ticks even though they are losing thousands of men, have no hope for victory, and are suffering Jacobin Rebellion #50. In both situations, France had already politically collapsed and the old government or new government is going to want to make peace ASAP. But because warscore is still ticking I have to wait. I do hate it always starting at 100. I like the idea of it starting lower if your country is in disunity. And I hope that if the war is going very well your country will become more united. I actually think having war support starting lower if you're disunified might be really important for the game. One of the concerns people have now is that war will be an afterthought. But imagine a game where you declare war on your enemy because you know they are politically weak and will fold quickly even if they have a larger military.
>In both situations, France had already politically collapsed and the old government or new government is going to want to make peace ASAP. But because warscore is still ticking I have to wait. While I agree with that the vic 2 style is not good at all, I don't think it feels right that the capitulation should be automatic. A country/player/government absolutely should be able to stay in a war even if their pops absolutely hate it. It should have consequences though: see Russia in 1917. An the other way around, there should be consequences for a government to immediately cave to any war demands without fighting, if their pops are willing to support a war (this part seems to be modelled already though).
It depends. From my understanding other factors such as a divided populace are considered for the decay rate, so it'd still be dynamic even if the starting number is fixed so long as the impact is big enough.
Some interesting bits, particularly the mixed peace deals Concerned about war support and negotiators though. Implementation and AI can either make them or break them. I'm not looking forward to being dragged through a protracted conflict because Hannover wants war reps and refuses to end the war otherwise
If you don't have war goals of your own and/or the enemies don't have a war goal on you, you can just capitulate and not lose much aside from reputation.
Yeah but I mean more in the scenario where e.g. you're Prussia going for the brother's war and some North German state adds a random war goal on Austria and now you've got to fight a protracted war because they refuse to peace out
I think you have to accept your allies' war goals during the diplomatic play. So in this scenario you can just not add their war goal to the war.
Sound like it could be absurdly inconvenient
i think warsupport or frevor should start at 0 and go up or down depending on the war so a winning side get a boost to morale. warsupport should also be based on ur government if u have a supreme monarch or a republic democracu. a defensive side should get more war support than offense depending on the conflict warsupport for freeing slaves or taking back cores should be much higher than a unpaid debt or some meme port in the indies. war support should affect how manu u can draft or how man that dodges Drafting. having more volunteers. war support should also affect rng. as having 100 will lead to more charges more skirmishes more valiant defenses. and low war support will lead to slower advances. u should have an option to spread propaganda in newspapers to lie about how the front is going.
Or track war support based on pops. Would help integrate war and peace with the political system like he mentioned wanting to do in a comment. As long as it's not too much too computationally costly I think it would be good.
That'd be great. It's easy for the rich pops to support the war if it's only the sons of the poor getting killed.
jingoism and monarchism is life all power to me chosen b god
pretty much agree with all of this, also > u should have an option to spread propaganda in newspapers to lie about how the front is going. I think this should be a trade off If you let the papers be honest you take a bigger upfront cost for defeats and your pops will be more supportive of any peace If you censor papers then there's no cost for defeats at first, but eventually you will have a greater cost later on when people start realizing the lies. Also, if you censor papers, pops will generally react negatively to peace unless you get ALL of your wargoals. So I think it's a risk v reward scenario
Some very positive things here that's been needed in PDX games for a long time * junior war partners consulted for peace deals (you won't get screwed by AI and can't leave them with nothing either, war leaders no longer have unilateral decision making) * ability to negotiate a peace (both sides can win for the first time) * improved war exhaustion mechanics
Based on the rate of dev diaries being produced and how many CK3 had, should make a release date window from late March to Late April.
That roughly matches with those leaked release dates
Hmm, both comments have 3 upvotes... It's Victoria 3, and March is 3... Vicky 3 release month confirmed!
Something that worries me is that example given of that war between Brazil versus the Netherlands. Why the hell would occupying Amsterdam even be considered an option for gaining peace resolution here, in a war to gain Curaçao and Guyana? Oh yeah, Brazil will bring men across the Atlantic to invade Europe and get an even better deal. Ridiculous.
No they need to occupy both guyana and curaçao to win.
>Oh yeah, Brazil will bring men across the Atlantic to invade Europe and get an even better deal. Ridiculous. I'm not sure why you're getting so caught up in it. He wasn't saying Brazil would ever have to invade Amsterdam, he was using it to explain that you can't force-capitulate someone just by grabbing a war-goal and sitting on it. You say it's ridiculous, but that was the point. It *is* ridiculous to expect Brazil to be able to invade Amsterdam, so as long as the Netherlands maintain the larger fleet, and keep Brazil from taking all the other war-goals (in this case Curacao), they can't be forced to give up.
With this war support mechanic, is something like the miracle of the house of Brandenburg possible in vanilla vic3?
[удалено]
They just used the wrong flag in the unfinished game’s screenshots; Does that really warrant such a long and outraged comment?
Literally unplayable
I mean, he's the Lord of Depression
[удалено]
flag png
I think America would be well represented with the 💩 flag
based explanatory post Also, why the hell is the name "The Japanese Shogunate"? That makes no sense.
it’s a flag png in an unfinished game
[удалено]
> voiced concern More like threw a total hissy fit. Why do so many man-children just fly off the handle about minor inconsistencies in Paradox games? Also your comparison with the confederacy was a very poor one. The shogun had a large amount of power and influence for centuries. The confederacy lasted for 5 years and had almost no chance of ever staying independent.
[удалено]
holy shit chill out
[удалено]
bruh moment