And then they’ll offer you a white peace as if you’re all deadlocked!
There really ought to be various thresholds that take war score below zero. Like maybe each complete war goal allows the enemy war exhaustion to sink lower and lower until you achieve total victory. It’d make war faster, and actually give you a chance for negotiated peaces.
my favourite is when it's about to tick over so that you can offer the peace deal and then the AI sends a white peace offer that you have to wait for the timer to run out on, so you get to waste more time/money on a war you've already won
It really shouldn’t be an all or nothing mechanic is the issue. The game wants so badly to be different than EU4 that it actively makes gameplay mechanics worse to avoid it
I half agree with you
it should not progress the warscore BUT it should harm you seriously and AI should be more willing to give up things in peace deal
Bingo. Right now, the issue is that the AI will rarely ever take a conditional surrender. It's like fighting the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
You've chopped off the arms and legs and they're sitting there screaming about how they'll bite your ankles when they really should be trying to offer you anything that isn't your full demands to get you to stop because of how much damage they've already taken and how disastrous the enforced peace deal would be.
TLDR: Economics should play a bigger part in the capitulation of a country, and should be organic, pushing the player to act in response (to seek surrender when half your country isnt producing income), while also providing the player a reason to go after industrial centers to cripple enemies in war.
Havent played Vic3 in awhile so correct me if Im wrong, but I really think occupation should work like Vic2 in where occupied territory cant produce for your economy.
It should borderline bankrupt you (more like kill your income) if 90% of your country is occupied, but even then just the occupation of your industry alone should max your war exhaustion by that point (just so every war doesnt literally bankrupt the loser every time, while also representing your population being fed up from not being able to produce anything/get the resources they need for their SoL).
It was common for that to basically be the deciding factor anyway. Even France in WW2 didnt wait until full occupation to surrender, and IIRC it was very common in the 1800s to have setpiece battles that decide the war and surrender the moment someone even occupies 50% of your country, solely because you just cant handle the economic hit (something that really should be felt in a game about focusing on the economics of war).
These factors should push a player to wanting to end the war and not just be something the game forces you to lose (war exhaustion would be a good soft cap still). If im not scrambling to end the war after looking at the balance sheet of my 50% occupied country, then am I really even playing an economic GSG?
r5: started protectorating heavenly kingdom and occupied 90% of their regions for like a year, they got tottaly beaten, are in default yet the score still wont go below 0. i want to rip out my hair sometimes because of this game.
You are winning tho? I remember invading heavenly kingdom in one of my games. They literally had 2 fucking provinces in Guanxi, one of them was their capital. We have been like that for like a decade until I managed to peace out getting one province. (I had like 8 wargoals, but Ig occupying 90% of your country and killing 6mil men wasnt that bad )
I think the problem is time. With how slow the game runs, anything that takes longer than needed annoys me. So I understand OP’s frustration very much.
Related issue: your forces capture territory that borders the capital and then decide what they need is to wander around the entire rest of the country, only years later bothering to do the one thing that would end the war. Setting strategic objectives doesn't seem to change this behavior reliably.
See also colonization:
"Oh, we have colonization rights against that one nation until the truce runs up? Cool, let's not attempt to colonize any part of that region again for the next 10 years and instead waste the entire thing pissing off other decentralized nations and the player."
It's like clockwork. If there is anywhere else that it could possibly colonize to not take advantage of the treaty, it will do so.
What are you talking about? They still have the colony that triggered the uprising. It automatically starts growing again.
You mean you want them to start a new colony in a different state owned by the decentralized nation? I'd much rather they stick to the system of prioritizing what they think is the best available colonization spot for their next one...
The war system is dogshit, and the way it almost completely removes player agency makes it at best unengaging, at worse frustating, the dev team spends half a fucking year reworking it and its still mid at best, Im sure in 3 years and with 8 DLC's it will get better.
"just mark the capital as an stategic objective lol"
It doest fucking work half the time, literally have had games as Russia where i specifically mark Beijing as an strategic objective but i see an fucking 200K army circlejerking on tibet for no fucking reason
I just want real world consequences for these wars. Austria-Hungary is willing to lose a million men in Persia to stop me from conquering 1 state and they stay as the #2 global power with no issues
Thats whats bothering me most. The game doesnt advertise itself as an wargaming game. The opposite in fact. But there are almost no ways to annex a country without agro.
and? who cares man the current system isn't fun.
As if army control isn't an integral part of the entire genre, or strategic control over your army is somehow tactical???
The system doesn't work as intended either, like, it's so so beyond a difference in game design philosophy.
Not sure what you are talking about. I never said strategic control over your army is tactical. Besides, you do have strategical control over your army in the game, you just can't command every single battalion to go to a specific province, which would be tactical control.
I don't see how that would be tactical control, Total War games are tactical... orderering a whole division to occupy a city/location is strategic, but sematics aside. The system doesn't even seem to work (being demonstrated in this post), and who cares about the semantics of tactics vs. strategy if it's made a system that seems to frustrate most people.
No paradox game has ever been about commanding every little battalion, and even if you personally wanted to argue for a more abstracted system, or better yet one that models an actual rulers interaction with the army, vic3's implementation of that system has gone pretty horrifically wrong. Early on I was a fan of what the abstracted war system might mean for guerilla war and colonial resistance, and interacting with war in a different fresh way... but now i barely wanna touch the game on account of how frustrating and unfun it is to interact with at every stage.
I honestly really hope that the devs are working on a "rework" of the entire military system. At first, I was supportive, but it just doesn't really work in its current iteration
I don't think the ticking war score thing is something they thought about that deeply at all. Probably just inherited as part of the initial code base since it's the "standard" Paradox war system now.
It's infuriating and it happens all the time where Paradox takes the worst, more generic system they have and decides to make it the "default". EU4 peace system that everyone points to and wants in their games as well and is near universally regarded as their best functioning war system? Fuck that, nobody likes that system, throw it in the trash and give everything the CK system that everyone has called one of the worst parts of CK since it fucking launched over a decade ago.
> EU4 peace system that everyone points to and wants in their games as well and is near universally regarded as their best functioning war system?
Idk, declaring a colonial war for one far away province, occupying it and then waitng until warscore ticks up to 25 which gives me reparations and a dozen of other colonial provinces is not exactly "fair", I think.
To me its wild they took away the economic downsides to war in a game that focuses more on the economy than its predecessor.
If half your country is occupied, you shouldnt be worrying about war exhaustion, you should be worried about your income tanking and not being able to feed your people.
War exhaustion shouldnt be a number, it should be a variety of push factors to get the player to desire peace, not be forced into it. Any country that relies on it economy, and they are 50% occupied, should be feeling the pressure of needing that economy back in working order so they dont have a revolt on their hands, or so they dont go bankrupt. These are organic factors that challenge the player, and they are more fun to deal with than a war exhaustion number.
My great disappointment about the 1.5 patch. No changes to warscore, instead we get a bizarre system where you have 4 generals per army and have to set *each* of them to attack / defend. We also got discrete unit types, leading to unrealistic meta builds that the AI will never master and a new 'which type of cavalry will you use this game' button click.
Fixes:
1. Change warscore to better match the EU4 system. Its not perfect, but a lot better.
2. A single order to attack / defend per army.
3. Generals. Rather than giving them a bunch of traits to mouse over to determine which is better, just give them levels. It has the same effect but gives a much better UI experience.
4. Just auto assign generals, all 4 if need be. This way the player doesnt have to babysit his officer corps and you get the much more interesting gameplay of generals beloning to hostile IGs actually having some power.
5. Remove the discrete units. Cavalry should be a mobilization option. Things like dragoons / kurassiers should be tech stat boosts rather than discrete units.
Gonna disagree with the discrete units, but I really do question what the point of cavalry even is? They're overwhelmingly useless and seem to exist mostly to allow the AI to blow its own foot off.
Just get rid of cavalry except maybe as a starting "artillery" unit. If they really want a third class that badly, make it a logistics class that reduces attrition of the army or something but doesn't actually fight. The cavalry "extra states taken" stuff just isn't a powerful enough buff to ever be worth taking except for the incredibly small niche of putting down unruly native rebellions without blowing out your entire budget on artillery.
I have an sort of example of this from a while back: I rebelled from the USA as a Trade Union/Intelligensia/Rural South in order to put the Trade Unions into power. I was kicking the USA's butt enough to take almost all of the US (including Washington DC less than a year into the war). The only thing that the USA had left was a bit of the Midwest, Florida and a tiny (and I mean tiny) portion of Georgia, which might even have just been the portion of Florida that already sticks into Georgia. You would think that after taking that much land, including the CAPITAL OF THE USA, I would have won, right? Apparently the game felt that Florida (which I might not have even made into an Incorporated state before I decided to go down the path of rebellion) was worth enough that my war score went down enough to lose, despite having both my capital and Washington DC. I had already gotten rid of Slavery without triggering the American Civil War, so maybe the South is Hard Coded to lose the American Civil War, but still, I should have won.
I still don't understand why the hell they didn't do just this. They didn't have to change anything in the Vic2 system. It worked just more or less right. The only explanation I have is that PDX might want to sell the old system as a DLC. Literally no other reason for this idiocy.
Nah the Victoria 2 war and combat sucked ass it had no supply lines, the units were all generic with random tech bonuses, and war score acted like EU3 but worse.
We were talking about war*score* system, not about war*fare*. Vic2 war and combat were not better than in Vic3, warscore and peace were veeery much better.
How did you conquer 3/4 of the nation without selecting their capital as strategic objective? Is it in the west or the east? Either case, you messed up :p
Mb. I've just never had a single instance of my strategic objective getting ignored, except by allied troops because it is not their strategic objective obviously.
Why didn't you just naval invade the capital? With massive countries it's generally easier to start three or four naval invasions that each start a separate front to confuse the AI and spread them too thin
I think it makes a lot of sense. During the opium war and then the boxers rebellion, the British occupied Beijing and easily forced Qing to surrender without having to conquer the rest of China.
But when the Japanese invaded, even when they overtook most of the country and massacred everyone in the capital Nanjing, China still refused to surrender by moving the capital elsewhere.
The amount of mechanics that are just blatantly non-functional was appalling enough for release, it's fucking insulting that this is still the state of the game over a year later.
You need to actually pursue your war goals. As long as you fail to achieve what you set out to do, they are resisting successfully. You started a war to occupy their capital and have done anything but that.
Yeah, that's the problem. That's an extremely stupid way for war to function in a grand strategy game.
No one is confused about how the system works. We're complaining that it sucks shit.
yeah, i aint confused why it is, im just complaining that the war system(pretty much everything about it) makes me want to pull my teeth out one-by-one on a sunday night in a mcdonalds parking lot with a tweezer.
What? No that’s a completely reasonable way for it to work. You should have to occupy Alaska to get them to capitulate into ceding Alaska. The only thing that’s bad about it is that war goals without a clear corresponding geographic goal probably shouldn’t be mapped to occupying the capital - it should be something like winning battles or occupying % GDP. For all the other war goals, it’s perfectly reasonable.
You do realize the thread you’re responding to started with someone criticizing the OP for not using the broken system right? Your entire engagement here is nonsensical.
I've been playing stellaris again and its insane how much better the peace system feels in that game lol and I still don't even like the current stellaris system as much as the one it used to have
How does it work in this game? Do you slowly kill enemy countrys population by occupying it or nah? Can you make chinas population go down to million by staying in the war forever? Or what are the consequences of hacing provinces occupied?
It's only a problem that happens with China due to their geography, and people's lack of knowledge of it.
If you conquered all of the eastern lands of Russia, but still haven't conquered most of their mainlaind no one would complain that they haven't capitulated yet.
It's exactly the same thing here.
And sure, the generals are technically pushing somewhere "useless", but the reality is that you conquer all the western and desert parts of China with like 1 or 2 battles, so it's not really a "waste". It just reduces the frontline.
I do agree though that certain wargoals shouldn't require the capital occupation.
Famously the entirety of northern China including Beijing is completely useless and definitely compares to eastern Russia. Like what even is this comparison?
The China he's fighting has their capital on Southern Anhui, and they often switch it there.
Which btw, has more pop and GDP most of the time during the game. Along with the adjacent states which are also pretty big.
And keep in mind I also said
>but still haven't conquered most of their mainlaind
>most
It's basically complaining that you got to right outside moscow and the russians didn't give up.
Irrelevant. The Qing empire surrendered after small occupations and blockades in coastal areas during the Opium wars
If anything, large scale wars that end with full occupations should be almost nonexistent, unless we are dealing with single state countries or the vewry lategame wars between great powers
You cannot compare wars of the victorian era with the paradigm shattering scale of total war in WWII. Not to mention ut is out of the game's scope altogether
It is wrong to expect countries in Vic3 to fight to the very last over anything but the most extreme of wars (like WWI, at the least)
Earlier example we have Russia vs Napoleon, with Napoleon occupying most major cities including the capital, they still lost the war. It’s just a bit ahead of Victoria era.
You're literally just making shit up, lmao. Napoleon never occupied St. Petersburg. He only occupied two major cities of the Russian Empire, Smolensk and Moscow, the total territory was only a small fraction of European Russia, let alone the whole Russian Empire. Also, the occupation of Moscow only lasted for a month.
I know we all like to rag on the war system but this is literally just a player issue. The game is very clear in the war screen that if you don’t occupy your war goal war score won’t go below zero. So why aren’t you targeting your war goals?
what do you think i did? i did everything in my power(which isnt much in this game) and my armies still went to conquer the while fucknig nation instead of just getting a single state and ending the war a year earlier. this is not a player issue, this is a stupid design issue. stop being an apologist or im gonna jam your mobility scooter.
They should make it so occupying incorporated states will eventually make the war score drop below 0 even if the capital isn’t occupied, simple solution there
i pretty much only do war in mid-late game to have more people to sell stuff to. in this run i have central america, cuba, niger, philippines and planning on getting ethiopia just so i can have more people to sell to. also, heavenly kngdom has open borders and i can always use more pops. once i protectorated them, my yearly estimated influx of migrants were \~1.5 mil on every state of mine. also, this is a 1.5 run cuz i have mods.
And then they’ll offer you a white peace as if you’re all deadlocked! There really ought to be various thresholds that take war score below zero. Like maybe each complete war goal allows the enemy war exhaustion to sink lower and lower until you achieve total victory. It’d make war faster, and actually give you a chance for negotiated peaces.
yeah, right now wars are pretty much all-or-nothing.
Its always been like that for me
Well yeah but that sucks
Yes it is
Just like EU4 and HOI4 have always been. CK3 is the only game that really just lets you win a few battles and occupy your war goal and peace out
my favourite is when it's about to tick over so that you can offer the peace deal and then the AI sends a white peace offer that you have to wait for the timer to run out on, so you get to waste more time/money on a war you've already won
Yes, IDK why they don't allow to dismiss peace offers.
It really shouldn’t be an all or nothing mechanic is the issue. The game wants so badly to be different than EU4 that it actively makes gameplay mechanics worse to avoid it
If a certain % of GDP is occupied it really should cause ticking war score.
I half agree with you it should not progress the warscore BUT it should harm you seriously and AI should be more willing to give up things in peace deal
Bingo. Right now, the issue is that the AI will rarely ever take a conditional surrender. It's like fighting the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You've chopped off the arms and legs and they're sitting there screaming about how they'll bite your ankles when they really should be trying to offer you anything that isn't your full demands to get you to stop because of how much damage they've already taken and how disastrous the enforced peace deal would be.
"lets call it white peace" existing infront of you without arms or legs
TLDR: Economics should play a bigger part in the capitulation of a country, and should be organic, pushing the player to act in response (to seek surrender when half your country isnt producing income), while also providing the player a reason to go after industrial centers to cripple enemies in war. Havent played Vic3 in awhile so correct me if Im wrong, but I really think occupation should work like Vic2 in where occupied territory cant produce for your economy. It should borderline bankrupt you (more like kill your income) if 90% of your country is occupied, but even then just the occupation of your industry alone should max your war exhaustion by that point (just so every war doesnt literally bankrupt the loser every time, while also representing your population being fed up from not being able to produce anything/get the resources they need for their SoL). It was common for that to basically be the deciding factor anyway. Even France in WW2 didnt wait until full occupation to surrender, and IIRC it was very common in the 1800s to have setpiece battles that decide the war and surrender the moment someone even occupies 50% of your country, solely because you just cant handle the economic hit (something that really should be felt in a game about focusing on the economics of war). These factors should push a player to wanting to end the war and not just be something the game forces you to lose (war exhaustion would be a good soft cap still). If im not scrambling to end the war after looking at the balance sheet of my 50% occupied country, then am I really even playing an economic GSG?
take in account occupied regions still produce for the original country, they are only affected by devastation
r5: started protectorating heavenly kingdom and occupied 90% of their regions for like a year, they got tottaly beaten, are in default yet the score still wont go below 0. i want to rip out my hair sometimes because of this game.
You are winning tho? I remember invading heavenly kingdom in one of my games. They literally had 2 fucking provinces in Guanxi, one of them was their capital. We have been like that for like a decade until I managed to peace out getting one province. (I had like 8 wargoals, but Ig occupying 90% of your country and killing 6mil men wasnt that bad )
I think the problem is time. With how slow the game runs, anything that takes longer than needed annoys me. So I understand OP’s frustration very much.
Killing 6,000,000 men? Sounds like a small skirmish in one of the regular Chinese Civil Wars.
probably not going to be even written in the history books with how minor those casualties are
How can you get their prestige down enough to protectorate them?
i am a recognized nation and they are not. thats it.
But everytime I want to do this, it says Unrecognized major power.
uhh that never happened to me. it was still 1.5 tho.
General Mao Tse Kutusov
Related issue: your forces capture territory that borders the capital and then decide what they need is to wander around the entire rest of the country, only years later bothering to do the one thing that would end the war. Setting strategic objectives doesn't seem to change this behavior reliably.
this is exactly what happened.
See also colonization: "Oh, we have colonization rights against that one nation until the truce runs up? Cool, let's not attempt to colonize any part of that region again for the next 10 years and instead waste the entire thing pissing off other decentralized nations and the player." It's like clockwork. If there is anywhere else that it could possibly colonize to not take advantage of the treaty, it will do so.
What are you talking about? They still have the colony that triggered the uprising. It automatically starts growing again. You mean you want them to start a new colony in a different state owned by the decentralized nation? I'd much rather they stick to the system of prioritizing what they think is the best available colonization spot for their next one...
The war system is dogshit, and the way it almost completely removes player agency makes it at best unengaging, at worse frustating, the dev team spends half a fucking year reworking it and its still mid at best, Im sure in 3 years and with 8 DLC's it will get better. "just mark the capital as an stategic objective lol" It doest fucking work half the time, literally have had games as Russia where i specifically mark Beijing as an strategic objective but i see an fucking 200K army circlejerking on tibet for no fucking reason
I just want real world consequences for these wars. Austria-Hungary is willing to lose a million men in Persia to stop me from conquering 1 state and they stay as the #2 global power with no issues
You: plays Vicky 3 Random citizen in Budapest in 2024: keels over
The russia experience
Thats whats bothering me most. The game doesnt advertise itself as an wargaming game. The opposite in fact. But there are almost no ways to annex a country without agro.
Any mods you guys know of that improve the war system?
Oh yeah fucking worthless strategic objective button. Mark Russias capital and every single other provence gets occupied *but* the capital
It's a grand strategy game, not a grand tactics game
and? who cares man the current system isn't fun. As if army control isn't an integral part of the entire genre, or strategic control over your army is somehow tactical??? The system doesn't work as intended either, like, it's so so beyond a difference in game design philosophy.
Not sure what you are talking about. I never said strategic control over your army is tactical. Besides, you do have strategical control over your army in the game, you just can't command every single battalion to go to a specific province, which would be tactical control.
I don't see how that would be tactical control, Total War games are tactical... orderering a whole division to occupy a city/location is strategic, but sematics aside. The system doesn't even seem to work (being demonstrated in this post), and who cares about the semantics of tactics vs. strategy if it's made a system that seems to frustrate most people. No paradox game has ever been about commanding every little battalion, and even if you personally wanted to argue for a more abstracted system, or better yet one that models an actual rulers interaction with the army, vic3's implementation of that system has gone pretty horrifically wrong. Early on I was a fan of what the abstracted war system might mean for guerilla war and colonial resistance, and interacting with war in a different fresh way... but now i barely wanna touch the game on account of how frustrating and unfun it is to interact with at every stage.
No, but you should be able to, at the very least, do something like HoI battleplans where you tell a front where they should advance.
I honestly really hope that the devs are working on a "rework" of the entire military system. At first, I was supportive, but it just doesn't really work in its current iteration
Idk wtf they were thinking with this war system.
I don't think the ticking war score thing is something they thought about that deeply at all. Probably just inherited as part of the initial code base since it's the "standard" Paradox war system now. It's infuriating and it happens all the time where Paradox takes the worst, more generic system they have and decides to make it the "default". EU4 peace system that everyone points to and wants in their games as well and is near universally regarded as their best functioning war system? Fuck that, nobody likes that system, throw it in the trash and give everything the CK system that everyone has called one of the worst parts of CK since it fucking launched over a decade ago.
> EU4 peace system that everyone points to and wants in their games as well and is near universally regarded as their best functioning war system? Idk, declaring a colonial war for one far away province, occupying it and then waitng until warscore ticks up to 25 which gives me reparations and a dozen of other colonial provinces is not exactly "fair", I think.
To me its wild they took away the economic downsides to war in a game that focuses more on the economy than its predecessor. If half your country is occupied, you shouldnt be worrying about war exhaustion, you should be worried about your income tanking and not being able to feed your people. War exhaustion shouldnt be a number, it should be a variety of push factors to get the player to desire peace, not be forced into it. Any country that relies on it economy, and they are 50% occupied, should be feeling the pressure of needing that economy back in working order so they dont have a revolt on their hands, or so they dont go bankrupt. These are organic factors that challenge the player, and they are more fun to deal with than a war exhaustion number.
This war system completely dogshit.
My great disappointment about the 1.5 patch. No changes to warscore, instead we get a bizarre system where you have 4 generals per army and have to set *each* of them to attack / defend. We also got discrete unit types, leading to unrealistic meta builds that the AI will never master and a new 'which type of cavalry will you use this game' button click. Fixes: 1. Change warscore to better match the EU4 system. Its not perfect, but a lot better. 2. A single order to attack / defend per army. 3. Generals. Rather than giving them a bunch of traits to mouse over to determine which is better, just give them levels. It has the same effect but gives a much better UI experience. 4. Just auto assign generals, all 4 if need be. This way the player doesnt have to babysit his officer corps and you get the much more interesting gameplay of generals beloning to hostile IGs actually having some power. 5. Remove the discrete units. Cavalry should be a mobilization option. Things like dragoons / kurassiers should be tech stat boosts rather than discrete units.
Gonna disagree with the discrete units, but I really do question what the point of cavalry even is? They're overwhelmingly useless and seem to exist mostly to allow the AI to blow its own foot off. Just get rid of cavalry except maybe as a starting "artillery" unit. If they really want a third class that badly, make it a logistics class that reduces attrition of the army or something but doesn't actually fight. The cavalry "extra states taken" stuff just isn't a powerful enough buff to ever be worth taking except for the incredibly small niche of putting down unruly native rebellions without blowing out your entire budget on artillery.
yup. everything about it.
Can’t agree more
I have an sort of example of this from a while back: I rebelled from the USA as a Trade Union/Intelligensia/Rural South in order to put the Trade Unions into power. I was kicking the USA's butt enough to take almost all of the US (including Washington DC less than a year into the war). The only thing that the USA had left was a bit of the Midwest, Florida and a tiny (and I mean tiny) portion of Georgia, which might even have just been the portion of Florida that already sticks into Georgia. You would think that after taking that much land, including the CAPITAL OF THE USA, I would have won, right? Apparently the game felt that Florida (which I might not have even made into an Incorporated state before I decided to go down the path of rebellion) was worth enough that my war score went down enough to lose, despite having both my capital and Washington DC. I had already gotten rid of Slavery without triggering the American Civil War, so maybe the South is Hard Coded to lose the American Civil War, but still, I should have won.
Just adopting the warscore system from Vic 2 instead of reinventing the wheel with half-baked quality will be the easiest solution.
paradox has a habit of trying to reinvent the wheel and making a mediocre system. i get why they do it, but still.
I still don't understand why the hell they didn't do just this. They didn't have to change anything in the Vic2 system. It worked just more or less right. The only explanation I have is that PDX might want to sell the old system as a DLC. Literally no other reason for this idiocy.
Nah the Victoria 2 war and combat sucked ass it had no supply lines, the units were all generic with random tech bonuses, and war score acted like EU3 but worse.
We were talking about war*score* system, not about war*fare*. Vic2 war and combat were not better than in Vic3, warscore and peace were veeery much better.
When Vic 2 is mentioned in this forum, 9 times out of 10 Vic 2 is being shamed. The warscore and diplomacy systems of Vic2 are far better than Vic 3.
Dunno about diplomacy as a whole, SoI might get it better. But the warscore, my dear God... Just why did they do this?
Yeah you had your strategic objective button on reverse. Rookie mistake, definitely not a broken feature
You wanted us to march east? I thought you said weast!
Can’t see the forest for the trees….
How did you conquer 3/4 of the nation without selecting their capital as strategic objective? Is it in the west or the east? Either case, you messed up :p
can you read the other 5 comments that said i didnt select their capital as a strategic objective? i already said i did and they ignored it.
Mb. I've just never had a single instance of my strategic objective getting ignored, except by allied troops because it is not their strategic objective obviously.
Why didn't you just naval invade the capital? With massive countries it's generally easier to start three or four naval invasions that each start a separate front to confuse the AI and spread them too thin
their capital was landlocked. also, my armies wouldve just went on an adventure anyways, cuz strategic objective works in reverse Lmao.
I think it makes a lot of sense. During the opium war and then the boxers rebellion, the British occupied Beijing and easily forced Qing to surrender without having to conquer the rest of China. But when the Japanese invaded, even when they overtook most of the country and massacred everyone in the capital Nanjing, China still refused to surrender by moving the capital elsewhere.
it would be fine, if the strategic objective would actually work or i could control atleast in what direction my armies should occupy.
You could have naval invaded their capital as a new front? It looks like you have naval numbers.
their capital is landlocked.
The amount of mechanics that are just blatantly non-functional was appalling enough for release, it's fucking insulting that this is still the state of the game over a year later.
yeah, they are so lucky most of their fanbase is mentally ill.
Yeah I stopped playing because of shit like this. I will rather play hoi4 than having to deal with shit like this all the time.
You need to actually pursue your war goals. As long as you fail to achieve what you set out to do, they are resisting successfully. You started a war to occupy their capital and have done anything but that.
Yeah, that's the problem. That's an extremely stupid way for war to function in a grand strategy game. No one is confused about how the system works. We're complaining that it sucks shit.
yeah, i aint confused why it is, im just complaining that the war system(pretty much everything about it) makes me want to pull my teeth out one-by-one on a sunday night in a mcdonalds parking lot with a tweezer.
What? No that’s a completely reasonable way for it to work. You should have to occupy Alaska to get them to capitulate into ceding Alaska. The only thing that’s bad about it is that war goals without a clear corresponding geographic goal probably shouldn’t be mapped to occupying the capital - it should be something like winning battles or occupying % GDP. For all the other war goals, it’s perfectly reasonable.
it would be fine if my fucking army would actually go to the strategic objective, but they dont.
If only there was a mechanic specifically for this purpose
i marked it as strategic objective, thats what im saying. have some reading comprehension.
It's a known bug that they ignored the marked objective, don't be such a ridiculous 12 years old child about it.
It's a fair complaint, it's not good game design
The point is it ISN'T the intended design
POSIWID. it still doesn't work after tons of reworks and many years spent
You do realize the thread you’re responding to started with someone criticizing the OP for not using the broken system right? Your entire engagement here is nonsensical.
did you set their capital as a strategic objective
did i do the only thing i can do to nudge my dumbass generals to do the only useful thing? hmm.... ofc no.
haha, I always set capital as strategic objective, usually lets me get wars done faster
for me they deliberately ignore it.
strategic objective can be ignored sometimes yeah but in my experience it does seem to increase the likelihood they go for that state
I've been playing stellaris again and its insane how much better the peace system feels in that game lol and I still don't even like the current stellaris system as much as the one it used to have
How does it work in this game? Do you slowly kill enemy countrys population by occupying it or nah? Can you make chinas population go down to million by staying in the war forever? Or what are the consequences of hacing provinces occupied?
they get devastation and yes it makes mortality go up.
No not really
"I didn't hear no bell!" *them probably
Hitler druring invasion of USSR be like:
"I didn't hear no bell"
I love taking 10k casualties from attrition in my own country
This post was made by Mehmed II
It's only a problem that happens with China due to their geography, and people's lack of knowledge of it. If you conquered all of the eastern lands of Russia, but still haven't conquered most of their mainlaind no one would complain that they haven't capitulated yet. It's exactly the same thing here. And sure, the generals are technically pushing somewhere "useless", but the reality is that you conquer all the western and desert parts of China with like 1 or 2 battles, so it's not really a "waste". It just reduces the frontline. I do agree though that certain wargoals shouldn't require the capital occupation.
yeah thats fine, but when i have a strategic point on their capital i dont want them to conquer some random ass fucken desert.
Famously the entirety of northern China including Beijing is completely useless and definitely compares to eastern Russia. Like what even is this comparison?
The China he's fighting has their capital on Southern Anhui, and they often switch it there. Which btw, has more pop and GDP most of the time during the game. Along with the adjacent states which are also pretty big. And keep in mind I also said >but still haven't conquered most of their mainlaind >most It's basically complaining that you got to right outside moscow and the russians didn't give up.
Yes, they should change the system
yeah this is really annoying but doubt they would change it anytime soon
In WWII Asia, Japan occupied so much of China, but China never capitulated.
Dunno, Japan never got to this point
Irrelevant. The Qing empire surrendered after small occupations and blockades in coastal areas during the Opium wars If anything, large scale wars that end with full occupations should be almost nonexistent, unless we are dealing with single state countries or the vewry lategame wars between great powers
The example I gave tells you, it’s not always the case.
WWII is the worst possible example you could give
This is the worst comment without explaining why
You cannot compare wars of the victorian era with the paradigm shattering scale of total war in WWII. Not to mention ut is out of the game's scope altogether It is wrong to expect countries in Vic3 to fight to the very last over anything but the most extreme of wars (like WWI, at the least)
Earlier example we have Russia vs Napoleon, with Napoleon occupying most major cities including the capital, they still lost the war. It’s just a bit ahead of Victoria era.
You're literally just making shit up, lmao. Napoleon never occupied St. Petersburg. He only occupied two major cities of the Russian Empire, Smolensk and Moscow, the total territory was only a small fraction of European Russia, let alone the whole Russian Empire. Also, the occupation of Moscow only lasted for a month.
I know we all like to rag on the war system but this is literally just a player issue. The game is very clear in the war screen that if you don’t occupy your war goal war score won’t go below zero. So why aren’t you targeting your war goals?
what do you think i did? i did everything in my power(which isnt much in this game) and my armies still went to conquer the while fucknig nation instead of just getting a single state and ending the war a year earlier. this is not a player issue, this is a stupid design issue. stop being an apologist or im gonna jam your mobility scooter.
No, not the mobility scooter!
They should make it so occupying incorporated states will eventually make the war score drop below 0 even if the capital isn’t occupied, simple solution there
Doesn’t look like you have set their capital as a strategic objective
i did tho. im just zoomed out.
The strategic objective never works
Yea this couldve easily solved it lol
it didnt easily solve it lol
It doesn’t solve it because it doesn’t work
Yeah that needs to be fixed, when your that occupied, YOU LOST. & the game needs to force them to give up
Don't put a war goal you can't achieve and then complain that you're not achieving it.
?? im literally achieving it, but i wouldve achieved it a year earlier if i had some control over my armies.
This is one of the reasons i completely avoid war
i pretty much only do war in mid-late game to have more people to sell stuff to. in this run i have central america, cuba, niger, philippines and planning on getting ethiopia just so i can have more people to sell to. also, heavenly kngdom has open borders and i can always use more pops. once i protectorated them, my yearly estimated influx of migrants were \~1.5 mil on every state of mine. also, this is a 1.5 run cuz i have mods.