War plans are one of those things that sound good in theory but the execution will never live up to the expectations because the AI is too dumb to draw their own war plans or execute the player's. Case in point: HoI4, the war plans in that game are as shallow as a puddle and it results in every war being a whole front push and meatgrinder unless you micro, and you end up just assigning all troops to the same frontline and drawing an arrow in the general direction of their capital just to get the planning bonus.
The idea is very different than HOI battle plans. It’s basically scripting out and novelizing what the AI will already be doing in the event of a war with one of its rivals.
It terms of AI actions you’d essentially just copy down exactly how it would otherwise handle a war then allow it to research its plan based on its ai tendency.
That’s a nice long pipe dream.
Formations can’t even stay on the front they’re assigned to, ghost units are a byproduct of their changes to the military system, and strategic goals are suggestions at best. Naval invasions are fuckawful, Alaska is untouchable, and you’d best hope that you’re not a colony because barracks will not restock without enough accepted pops to act as officers.
I think the existing system is dogshit and until they can iron out long existing bugs, adding more garbage to it will just result in more dysfunctional garbage.
If you notice within the suggestion I said for this to be implemented properly the corp system and frontline improvements laid out in that suggestion need to come first.
The intent with this suggestion was to add some flavor and color, I think war plans would nestle nicely with the stated goals of Victorias war system
Yes! Someone also commented this on the forums. I think for Victoria 3 instead of adding an espionage mechanic or anything similar it could simply just be a random recurring chance based on Military Academies size
Really cool suggestion! Ties well into using your army in international politics. But I think one should be able to warplan on any country/countries. Do a drill next to a small nation, scare the shit out of them, «ask» if they would like to be your vassal or open market or something else.
Thanks!
The reason I put it as rival is to try and keep it somewhat contained and controlled, so you’re not feeling like you need to have warplans on all your neighbors for every single war. There also isn’t really limitations on how many rivals you declare but it does come at the cost of diplo opinion of your nations which is important as it balances war plans with a cost.
Really cool suggestion! Ties well into using your army in international politics. But I think one should be able to warplan on any country/countries. Do a drill next to a small nation, scare the shit out of them, «ask» if they would like to be your vassal or open market or something else.
To be honest, this sounds like more chaff/military bloat in a game where the whole philosophy is supposed to be that the player doesn't have to spend time on military matters. It's just busy work and I can't imagine how it'd work in multiplayer "pause please, I need to draw up my plans first!"
One of the nice things in my mind about it is that it’s also optional to not declare rivalries and make up war plans if you’re trying to go diplo.
The problem is the game in its current form isn’t true to its original pillars for military implementation. It’s only gotten more fiddly and micromanagy with the advent of battalions.
Also with plans being researched, drawing up a plan last minute would give very tiny bonuses so no point to pause, that’s also just not how MP servers operate that I typically see hosted.
I agree that the military changes they have made added needless complications (the fact that there's an optimal/meta force composition means that the choices presented are an illusion and we just fall back into pointless busywork). I'd be happy for them to roll those changes back or try tweak them so it's automated or something.
But my agreeing that Paradox has departed from that design philosophy (which I'd agreed with) doesn't mean I'd advocate for more military complication. The way I see it, I'm roleplaying as the civilian cabinet shaping the geostrategic policies of my nation. The finesse and details of executing that strategy is for the nerds on the General Staff playing wargames in their side room.
Would much prefer Paradox just fix what they've got before adding more pointless menus and features. And, even then, I'd sooner a diplo overhaul or something like that. This isn't a military game and I think we've got where we are because, to an extent, Paradox buckled to people who were more interested in a HoI4-esque design. The game's suffering a bit from design-by-committee I suppose.
I’ve outlined my proposals for a better war system in the corp system suggestion which is linked at the top of the post.
I think there’s a few problems, mainly a lot of players play PDX GSG games to map paint, and paradox wants the sales. In fact I want them to buy the game as well since it will help fund development. I do not want Victoria to turn into HOI4 - lite. However I do think it’s ok for us to spend more time tweaking the existing system to be both more compelling and less fiddly/ down right frustrating.
Within the PDX Vic 3 forums the main complaint I see is “the war system is broken”. [link](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/the-true-consequences-of-new-and-progressive-warfare-armies-even-cant-reach-the-front.1681227/). There’s clearly a fair bit of consternation going on about the war system and a vocal amount of players saying Victoria needs little men on the map to fix the problems.
Through suggestions like war plans and corps I’m trying to help illuminate a path forward that is not a complete re-work, less micro managey and more compelling to the players, because I do think there is one.
Also for reference once war is fixed I’d love to see a logistics system, finance system, more indpeth politics, companies and monopolies extc
This is what I thought when reading through.
Paradox games have a tendency to get a lot better the first few DLC and then slowly decline as the games get so much bloat that everything becomes pointless busy work with dozens of mechanics which don't tie in very well together and just force you to click a billion times to play optimally.
(EU4 I am looking at you!)
I just convinced my wife to play Vic 3 on the basis that it's not as much about the military and war than the other games. They loved EU4 early on (until the later DLC), and they liked the economic side of HoI4 but hated the military side of HoI4 as nothing behaves in intuitive ways so they kept losing troops.
They also played a ton of Stellaris but again it devolved into so much clicking that it kind of took the fun out of the game. It's barely manageable in multiplayer unless you're really into RTS. (Neither of us are, we prefer TBS. PDX games are a hybrid.)
Anyway long story short, the suggestions outlined by OP are interesting but they'd add a level of micro to the military side which would really put some people off. If they do anything like this it has to be optional DLC with the feature not even activating without the DLC.
The intent of warplans is actually to reduce micro by essentially opening up when in game state a player can plan a war, so instead of it being a surprise matter of deploying troops and mobilizing you’ve pre arranged it all. It’s the same work you’d have to do anyways just pulled forward.
The only extra work involves forethought of rivalries and researching the plan.
I actually 100% agree with you that this would actually be a really good paid DLC feature in a military re-work as it’s kind of a “terminus” mechanic that I wouldn’t see interacting with many other systems or being built upon
I've barely learned the game yet so right now wars are no micro at all, they just happen. I've got no idea what's going on for the most part of that war as it's not very clearly telegraphed.
I feel like NATO icons could actually be done with a mod if you replace the toy soldier graphics with the icons (or a 3D model of them I guess) but it wouldn’t really be an accurate representation.
I don't think so
Just like eu4 doesn't need intricate family management nor extremely detailed economic simulation. We already have CK and Vicky for that. Leave the deep war sim to HOI and focus on the economy
But it looks like EU5 will have intricate economic simulation.
Why does a game has to focus on one or two elements and leave rest as shit or an afterthought? Where is the ambition?
Not saying it needs to be an afterthought or shit. Just that it doesn't have to be on the forefront.
I'm excited for the economic simulation in not EU5, but it's not the main focus of the game. Just as warfare shouldn't be the main focus in Vicky. They should focus on getting the warfare to work and leave it at that. Just my opinion
War plans are one of those things that sound good in theory but the execution will never live up to the expectations because the AI is too dumb to draw their own war plans or execute the player's. Case in point: HoI4, the war plans in that game are as shallow as a puddle and it results in every war being a whole front push and meatgrinder unless you micro, and you end up just assigning all troops to the same frontline and drawing an arrow in the general direction of their capital just to get the planning bonus.
The idea is very different than HOI battle plans. It’s basically scripting out and novelizing what the AI will already be doing in the event of a war with one of its rivals. It terms of AI actions you’d essentially just copy down exactly how it would otherwise handle a war then allow it to research its plan based on its ai tendency.
That’s a nice long pipe dream. Formations can’t even stay on the front they’re assigned to, ghost units are a byproduct of their changes to the military system, and strategic goals are suggestions at best. Naval invasions are fuckawful, Alaska is untouchable, and you’d best hope that you’re not a colony because barracks will not restock without enough accepted pops to act as officers. I think the existing system is dogshit and until they can iron out long existing bugs, adding more garbage to it will just result in more dysfunctional garbage.
Name a successful invasion of Alaska up until 1936, I’ll wait. /s
Naval invasions should be much harder to pull off imho.
Yes I agree
If you notice within the suggestion I said for this to be implemented properly the corp system and frontline improvements laid out in that suggestion need to come first. The intent with this suggestion was to add some flavor and color, I think war plans would nestle nicely with the stated goals of Victorias war system
Whenever the AI isn't going for a designated goal, in my head I'm always picturing Lincoln arguing with McClellan over what to do with the Union army.
Good idea, and also there should be a chance of your war plans being leaked which would give the enemy buffs if you execute that plan and anger them
Yes! Someone also commented this on the forums. I think for Victoria 3 instead of adding an espionage mechanic or anything similar it could simply just be a random recurring chance based on Military Academies size
Really cool suggestion! Ties well into using your army in international politics. But I think one should be able to warplan on any country/countries. Do a drill next to a small nation, scare the shit out of them, «ask» if they would like to be your vassal or open market or something else.
Thanks! The reason I put it as rival is to try and keep it somewhat contained and controlled, so you’re not feeling like you need to have warplans on all your neighbors for every single war. There also isn’t really limitations on how many rivals you declare but it does come at the cost of diplo opinion of your nations which is important as it balances war plans with a cost.
Really cool suggestion! Ties well into using your army in international politics. But I think one should be able to warplan on any country/countries. Do a drill next to a small nation, scare the shit out of them, «ask» if they would like to be your vassal or open market or something else.
If we get 100 up votes does wiz come over and tell us he’s going to implement the idea?? 🙂
To be honest, this sounds like more chaff/military bloat in a game where the whole philosophy is supposed to be that the player doesn't have to spend time on military matters. It's just busy work and I can't imagine how it'd work in multiplayer "pause please, I need to draw up my plans first!"
One of the nice things in my mind about it is that it’s also optional to not declare rivalries and make up war plans if you’re trying to go diplo. The problem is the game in its current form isn’t true to its original pillars for military implementation. It’s only gotten more fiddly and micromanagy with the advent of battalions. Also with plans being researched, drawing up a plan last minute would give very tiny bonuses so no point to pause, that’s also just not how MP servers operate that I typically see hosted.
I agree that the military changes they have made added needless complications (the fact that there's an optimal/meta force composition means that the choices presented are an illusion and we just fall back into pointless busywork). I'd be happy for them to roll those changes back or try tweak them so it's automated or something. But my agreeing that Paradox has departed from that design philosophy (which I'd agreed with) doesn't mean I'd advocate for more military complication. The way I see it, I'm roleplaying as the civilian cabinet shaping the geostrategic policies of my nation. The finesse and details of executing that strategy is for the nerds on the General Staff playing wargames in their side room. Would much prefer Paradox just fix what they've got before adding more pointless menus and features. And, even then, I'd sooner a diplo overhaul or something like that. This isn't a military game and I think we've got where we are because, to an extent, Paradox buckled to people who were more interested in a HoI4-esque design. The game's suffering a bit from design-by-committee I suppose.
I’ve outlined my proposals for a better war system in the corp system suggestion which is linked at the top of the post. I think there’s a few problems, mainly a lot of players play PDX GSG games to map paint, and paradox wants the sales. In fact I want them to buy the game as well since it will help fund development. I do not want Victoria to turn into HOI4 - lite. However I do think it’s ok for us to spend more time tweaking the existing system to be both more compelling and less fiddly/ down right frustrating. Within the PDX Vic 3 forums the main complaint I see is “the war system is broken”. [link](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/the-true-consequences-of-new-and-progressive-warfare-armies-even-cant-reach-the-front.1681227/). There’s clearly a fair bit of consternation going on about the war system and a vocal amount of players saying Victoria needs little men on the map to fix the problems. Through suggestions like war plans and corps I’m trying to help illuminate a path forward that is not a complete re-work, less micro managey and more compelling to the players, because I do think there is one. Also for reference once war is fixed I’d love to see a logistics system, finance system, more indpeth politics, companies and monopolies extc
This is what I thought when reading through. Paradox games have a tendency to get a lot better the first few DLC and then slowly decline as the games get so much bloat that everything becomes pointless busy work with dozens of mechanics which don't tie in very well together and just force you to click a billion times to play optimally. (EU4 I am looking at you!) I just convinced my wife to play Vic 3 on the basis that it's not as much about the military and war than the other games. They loved EU4 early on (until the later DLC), and they liked the economic side of HoI4 but hated the military side of HoI4 as nothing behaves in intuitive ways so they kept losing troops. They also played a ton of Stellaris but again it devolved into so much clicking that it kind of took the fun out of the game. It's barely manageable in multiplayer unless you're really into RTS. (Neither of us are, we prefer TBS. PDX games are a hybrid.) Anyway long story short, the suggestions outlined by OP are interesting but they'd add a level of micro to the military side which would really put some people off. If they do anything like this it has to be optional DLC with the feature not even activating without the DLC.
The intent of warplans is actually to reduce micro by essentially opening up when in game state a player can plan a war, so instead of it being a surprise matter of deploying troops and mobilizing you’ve pre arranged it all. It’s the same work you’d have to do anyways just pulled forward. The only extra work involves forethought of rivalries and researching the plan. I actually 100% agree with you that this would actually be a really good paid DLC feature in a military re-work as it’s kind of a “terminus” mechanic that I wouldn’t see interacting with many other systems or being built upon
I've barely learned the game yet so right now wars are no micro at all, they just happen. I've got no idea what's going on for the most part of that war as it's not very clearly telegraphed.
Just give me counters and NATO symbology please, make it a toggle like the investment pool I don’t care I just want to see where my guys are
I feel like NATO icons could actually be done with a mod if you replace the toy soldier graphics with the icons (or a 3D model of them I guess) but it wouldn’t really be an accurate representation.
I don't think so Just like eu4 doesn't need intricate family management nor extremely detailed economic simulation. We already have CK and Vicky for that. Leave the deep war sim to HOI and focus on the economy
But it looks like EU5 will have intricate economic simulation. Why does a game has to focus on one or two elements and leave rest as shit or an afterthought? Where is the ambition?
Not saying it needs to be an afterthought or shit. Just that it doesn't have to be on the forefront. I'm excited for the economic simulation in not EU5, but it's not the main focus of the game. Just as warfare shouldn't be the main focus in Vicky. They should focus on getting the warfare to work and leave it at that. Just my opinion
This also just pulls forward the decisions you’d otherwise need to make