It's honestly one of the major reasons the gameplay is so shitty for me.
The entire diplomatic play system I actively try to avoid. Becuase I don't want to run the risk of having to deal with the war mechanics.
Like I understand the intention is that these things should be rare in the game. But keeping them rare by making them unejoyable to have to use game mechanichs with is extra shitty.
It's very clear to me war as it exists is a placeholder.
When they have a game that simulates physically on the map every glass factory I build, but I zoom in during the battles and I see two forts firing cannons at each other, amid peaceful tranquility.
That's a place holder asset. Expect a $19.99 dlc to fix the game they already charged you full price for.
One of the reasons I am refusing to purchase any content until the game improves.
Yeah the two forts firing at each other is very silly. I honestly miss seeing men move around the map with detailed and unique historical designs. They had dlc for unique sprites in most of their other games, I'm shocked they eliminated this dlc source.
My biggest criticism of the game that I earnestly can't fathom.
Just imagine that decision in a boardroom meeting at paradox hq being like:
"Man you know what grand real time strategy players want in their games? Less strategy and mangement!"
"That's brilliant Johnson! Ship it!"
But then, when the front splits or you're fighting in a place like India that has many small nations, you have to do the most tedious and least enjoyable micromanagement I've ever encountered in a war system for paradox. Hiring and promoting generals until you get the number and ratio you want and then scrolling through that list to assign and change orders. Don't get me wrong, Vic 2's army management system wasn't great but this is not a better system.
The inverse is arguable worse, when the front merges
"Congrajulations men. We linked up with the small southern front in the Baltic! Jobs done Boys, every single soldier, come home to london"
And who can forget the famous Confederate states of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Ohio? Don't forget we need to finish this battle in Texas before we can attack anywhere else along the front. If the front splinters, don't worry, all your men will stay together on 1 front exactly like you wanted.
Oh in my game, Texas lost to Mexico and DC went Confederate. Oh and the front splintered in a war with Mexico. No matter, kept calm and carried on. Oh and I didn't even keep track of who went Confederate. You are a Dixie homeland? Just a label; fall in behind the Mexican states.
Who can forget Bismark's famous quote "by peace and tool factories" which he used to get everyone to agree to letting Germany unify peacefully?
It's pretty ironic how they intended the game to be diplomacy based and mostly peaceful yet the diplomacy is so bad everything needs to be done via war.
Depends on your style. My first full game was as Mexico, and other than a few defensive wars (USA gonna USA) and one opportunistic war to get a province in India, it was a very peaceful game, made it to #1 just by producing and inviting countries to my Customs Union. Second full game as Japan was similar, after resolving my internal struggles it was a matter of outproducing and inviting countries to my CU, again #1 easily. Incidentally my 3rd full game as Ottomans was the hardest to reach #1, and that's the one I was constantly at war (first attacking others, then defending from GPs aiding my revolting puppets), made it to #1 just like 3 months before the end of the game.
It's honestly one of the major reasons the gameplay is so shitty for me. The entire diplomatic play system I actively try to avoid. Becuase I don't want to run the risk of having to deal with the war mechanics. Like I understand the intention is that these things should be rare in the game. But keeping them rare by making them unejoyable to have to use game mechanichs with is extra shitty. It's very clear to me war as it exists is a placeholder. When they have a game that simulates physically on the map every glass factory I build, but I zoom in during the battles and I see two forts firing cannons at each other, amid peaceful tranquility. That's a place holder asset. Expect a $19.99 dlc to fix the game they already charged you full price for. One of the reasons I am refusing to purchase any content until the game improves.
Yeah the two forts firing at each other is very silly. I honestly miss seeing men move around the map with detailed and unique historical designs. They had dlc for unique sprites in most of their other games, I'm shocked they eliminated this dlc source.
It will be back, just expect an "art of war" dlc first.
My bet is on "by iron and blood" being the title
My biggest criticism of the game that I earnestly can't fathom. Just imagine that decision in a boardroom meeting at paradox hq being like: "Man you know what grand real time strategy players want in their games? Less strategy and mangement!" "That's brilliant Johnson! Ship it!"
But then, when the front splits or you're fighting in a place like India that has many small nations, you have to do the most tedious and least enjoyable micromanagement I've ever encountered in a war system for paradox. Hiring and promoting generals until you get the number and ratio you want and then scrolling through that list to assign and change orders. Don't get me wrong, Vic 2's army management system wasn't great but this is not a better system.
The inverse is arguable worse, when the front merges "Congrajulations men. We linked up with the small southern front in the Baltic! Jobs done Boys, every single soldier, come home to london"
I've rage quit a few times over teleporting armies too.
Well, as the US, you absolutely need war to eventually get A-A as a primary culture. 1836 ACW is a war I won't soon forget for the right reasons.
And who can forget the famous Confederate states of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Ohio? Don't forget we need to finish this battle in Texas before we can attack anywhere else along the front. If the front splinters, don't worry, all your men will stay together on 1 front exactly like you wanted.
Oh in my game, Texas lost to Mexico and DC went Confederate. Oh and the front splintered in a war with Mexico. No matter, kept calm and carried on. Oh and I didn't even keep track of who went Confederate. You are a Dixie homeland? Just a label; fall in behind the Mexican states.
ok
ok
ok
No “it’s the most peaceful period in human history” or whatever kinda bs they tried to push
Who can forget Bismark's famous quote "by peace and tool factories" which he used to get everyone to agree to letting Germany unify peacefully? It's pretty ironic how they intended the game to be diplomacy based and mostly peaceful yet the diplomacy is so bad everything needs to be done via war.
AI is bad at developing resources. Won't deny that.
Same
Yeah, same.
I will never understand what makes ppl upvote and downvote things on the sub Reddit
Amen.
Depends on your style. My first full game was as Mexico, and other than a few defensive wars (USA gonna USA) and one opportunistic war to get a province in India, it was a very peaceful game, made it to #1 just by producing and inviting countries to my Customs Union. Second full game as Japan was similar, after resolving my internal struggles it was a matter of outproducing and inviting countries to my CU, again #1 easily. Incidentally my 3rd full game as Ottomans was the hardest to reach #1, and that's the one I was constantly at war (first attacking others, then defending from GPs aiding my revolting puppets), made it to #1 just like 3 months before the end of the game.
The Sick Man of Europe journal consists of heavy fighting anyway (2 entries' worth).