For major global conflicts involving multiple fronts, naval invasions and naval action, it might actually be enough for an engaging war. But for smaller, single front conflicts it will be very hands off and rather dull.
Personally I was never into Victoria 2 for the stack warfare, so it's not a dealbreaker for me. I do hope that this is simply the ground level for a more engaging military system that is an alternative to death stacks and that more player interaction is added over time.
What keeps me from playing Vicky 2 more is the extra 10 hours that get added onto a playthrough if you want optimal micro. Its soul crushing when you have to micro on multiple fronts
just wait till you find out v3 paradoxically has just as much micro, despite dumbing down the system and trying to make it more "streamlined" >war about to begin >need to individually raise armies from regions >can't control amount, it's all or nothing >can't combine armies, you need to send them to the front one by one >give orders to individual armies one by one
and that's ignoring needing to manually set up your barracks, or having to babysit trade agreements each time some random country decides to import 100% of your ammunition without your consent
i suppose "securing logistics and supply lines" was the euphemism they used to describe this abomination
v3 isn't just going to disappoint the autists only, it's going to be detested by normalgays in a way not seen even in imperator
then paradox devs will 99% blame the leak, a couple token patches will be released out of principle and the game will become abandonware
>a couple token patches will be released out of principle and the game will become abandonware
That's what I predicted as well. When I posted it on the forums, they locked the thread. The devs are going to get exactly what they deserve.
> Darkest Hour and HOI3 had autopilot on boring things like economy and trade so you could focus on the fun grand strategy parts like diplomacy and war > Vic3 has autopilot on the fun grand strategy parts like diplomacy and war so you could focus on the boring things like economy and trade
I'm even more mad because they're going to squander a beautiful map on a bland game once more. I just want to look at funny skyscrapers AND be assed to do more than that.
It makes no sense for they to add more micro without also making it possible to automate it all, like why wouldn't you give more options to the player? If victoria 2 had a hoi4 like army system it would be a much better game for example
What keeps me from playing Vicky 2 more is the extra 10 hours that get added onto a playthrough if you want optimal micro. Its soul crushing when you have to micro on multiple fronts
>Victoria 2’s war system wasn’t that good >clearly the solution is to make it worse
For frick’s sake, they had so many ways to improve the combat from the previous game and this is what they do. I hope Johan is kicked out on the streets to starve when this flops.
>I do hope that this is simply the ground level for a more engaging military system
I hope you like paying $9.99 five times over for the DLCs that will make it playable
As bad as it seems I still like that they're trying something new instead of the old formula. I imagine we're gonna see some changes to warfare over time as well, unless they drop it like Imperator.
an army can only fight at a front (aka border connection)
standby means "go back to the barrack so that i can deploy you to another front"
if there's no front, the army cannot be used. only exception to this are naval invasions
No, and the answer is obviously no. The warfare model in Victoria 3 is somehow going to be even worse than the warfare model in previous paradox titles.
It could work, but as of the leak armies don't actually exist anywhere on the map. You're not handing command of your troops to AI generals to handle the war; you're just allocating X troops to map paint in a certain direction. This means individual units can never be cut off, armies can't be encircled and destroyed for a decisive victory, and there's no meaningful difference in how big a front actually is so long as the troops there have high enough stats to win a battle.
>bad AI justifies bad war mechanics
How about they hire programmers worth a damn? Back in the 90s some autistic white nerd in a shed could crank out better AI.
People who played the leak, were there any land logistic mechanics present? For instance in Russia-China war was there anything stopping either side from sending their entire armies to duke it out in Siberia? Or something preventing Peru-Brazil advancing over the Amazon and Andes as if it was North European Plain?
No logistics as far as I can tell. When I played Russia and started off in a diplo play to annex the kazakhs, China joined in (shows how dumb the diplo play feature is). I put 20 divisions on kazakhs and the remaining 100 or so on China, and absolutely no attrition was ever present. The only thing that I think caught me off guard was that China was able to send about 50 divisions per battle against my 7-10, but as it turns out all I had to do was upgrade my generals and suddenly I was able to get 20+ troops per battle and slaughter the Chinese. The whole war barely costed any money and there were no problems with reinforcing my troops except for the fact that I think I needed to send the armies back to HQ to get more divisions.
As for supplies, it's genuinely worse than pre-patch hoi4 where I'm pretty sure the only limiting factor is whether you have infrastructure level above 0. But even then, it's comically easy to fix since infrastructure just boils down to click button = railway, or by using authoritymana to tell your siberian population to build roads or something (which is more effective than 1 level of rails, by the way). Supplies don't even exist at all, since resources don't actually exist, which means any "shortage" of goods you need just costs some extra money and your soldiers don't suffer any penalties whatsoever. You'd think in a game supposedly about economics they'd make logistics actually a thing, but I guess not.
Uh have you never played eu4 the only tech difference is the institution meme which you have the enlightenment spread to the congo a couple years after it shows up in europe
bro last time I played EUIV the entire world was on the same level in institutions around 1700s and onwards. It was moronic as frick to see fricking tribal Africans with the same tech as Britain not to mention China would end up as a superpower every time. The first system which just gave a specific level of research disatvantage depending on region was stupid on paper but at least made it more realistic later in the campaign.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>bro last time I played EUIV the entire world was on the same level in institutions around 1700s and onwards
Yeah. You can't make institutions give Europe an auto-win for the entire timeline. Either do what we have now, or make it historical, so no real difference until ~1700. If you do the latter, casual players won't be able to get their fix from mindless colonization and tech-boosted, clumsy conquest in Asia and Africa, so we have the former instead.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>make it historical, so no real difference until ~1700
Yeah, it's not like Portuguese became a sole power on the Indian Ocean just after they barely managed to arrive there and could be dethroned only by the Dutch. Oh and it's not like China got fricked over by trade and missionaries as early as 17th century. And it's not like African slave kingdoms were built solely on trade with Europeans. Dumb frick.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Yeah, it's not like Portuguese became a sole power on the Indian Ocean just after they barely managed to arrive there and could be dethroned only by the Dutch.
They were solely a naval power, and unseating them means prioritizing naval dominance, not only in your own coastline, but of the coastline of every country between Cape Verde and Micronesia.
Only the Dutch ever had a reason to target them like this. >Oh and it's not like China got fricked over by trade and missionaries as early as 17th century.
They didn't. They were fricked up by their tax policies, multiple natural disasters, the massive expense of the Great Wall, and most importantly, their low regard for the military class, resulting in a rebellion by powerful armed forces in the Northwest, and later, their conquest by vengeful Manchus, who were originally invited in to crush rebels, but took over for themselves.
The Yongle emperor's decision to move the capital from Nanjing to Beijing, and his other mistakes, were the true undoing of Ming. >And it's not like African slave kingdoms were built solely on trade with Europeans.
Most weren't. Dahomey was the exception to the rule, since it was fully dependent on the slave trade to function as a state. Benin and the other states of modern-day West Africa explicitly attempted to limit it, but the introduction of Maldivian cowries caused massive inflation in West/Central Africa, and the governments couldn't bring it in check via taxation, so in order to regulate it, they had to intercept the trade by meeting the demand on their own. This is also why so many more slaves were imported from West/Central Africa than East Africa. In East Africa, there wasn't the underlying threat of hyperinflation to coerce the monarchs of the day. Also, in the kingdom of Kongo, a war was declared against the Kongolese government because they failed to meet the demand for slaves. It should be obvious they weren't just looking for people who'd buy bodies. >Dumb frick.
no u
2 years ago
Anonymous
nice post anon, i enjoyed reading that
2 years ago
Anonymous
Glad to hear it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Horrible post anon, I hated reading it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They were solely a naval power, and unseating them means prioritizing naval dominance, not only in your own coastline, but of the coastline of every country between Cape Verde and Micronesia.
Which Indian and Indonesian states couldn't hope to do because their shipbuilding wasn't good enough compared to European. Thanks for agreeing wit hmy point. >Only the Dutch ever had a reason to target them like this.
The spice trade was incredibly profitable even before first Euros came. >They didn't. They were fricked up by their tax policies, multiple natural disasters, the massive expense of the Great Wall, and most importantly, their low regard for the military class, resulting in a rebellion by powerful armed forces in the Northwest, and later, their conquest by vengeful Manchus, who were originally invited in to crush rebels, but took over for themselves.
Cool, you know your history but you fialed to address my point. All of that was also made worse by silver inflation, fresh from Spanish America. >Benin and the other states of modern-day West Africa explicitly attempted to limit it, but the introduction of Maldivian cowries caused massive inflation in West/Central Africa, and the governments couldn't bring it in check via taxation, so in order to regulate it, they had to intercept the trade by meeting the demand on their own.
So, what you're saying is... that slave trade with Euros has saved African kingdoms from economic crisis? Once again, thanks for agreeing with me.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Which Indian and Indonesian states couldn't hope to do because their shipbuilding wasn't good enough compared to European.
No, it's because scouring all across the Indian Ocean in search of Portuguese holdouts requires political will only a few minor states ever had. Most would just be indifferent to the Portuguese. Sometimes, they struck deals with them instead and allied with them for the trade benefits, as in the case of Portuguese Malacca and certain mainland SEA states. If they're being a nuisance, they may occasionally be purged or embargoed by locals. >The spice trade was incredibly profitable even before first Euros came.
And the monopoly only applied to European markets. If your ships aren't headed directly to Europe, it's not your business how much Portuguese merchants make from exploiting the price revolution there. What does matter is whether or not they're spending silver in your market. If they have a local outpost, they are. >Cool, you know your history but you fialed to address my point. All of that was also made worse by silver inflation, fresh from Spanish America.
Which isn't a tech or institution matter, just a compounding factor. Enjoy your estate influence modifier. >So, what you're saying is... that slave trade with Euros has saved African kingdoms from economic crisis?
No, it caused the economic crisis, then made it worse since they were literally draining the states of subjects and forcing them to declare countless wars to remain afloat. The governments just took over the trade directly because the alternative is a series of revolts and foreign invasions in your territory (neighbors), and it's the only way to negotiate limits with the traders. >thanks for agreeing with me.
Graceless and wrong. Just bow out.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>scouring all across the Indian Ocean in search of Portuguese holdouts requires political will only a few minor states ever had.
They toally could, they just didn't want to! >Sometimes, they struck deals with them instead and allied with them for the trade benefits
That's what being a dominant power entails. >If your ships aren't headed directly to Europe, it's not your business how much Portuguese merchants make from exploiting the price revolution there.
If Indonesians or Indians had good enough ships, they would be headed directly to Europe and they would want to exploit the price revolution. >Which isn't a tech or institution matter
It is, because at the time when first banks and stock exchanges were sprouting across Europe, Chinks had no financial instruments to stop it. >No, it caused the economic crisis, then made it worse since they were literally draining the states of subjects and forcing them to declare countless wars to remain afloat. The governments just took over the trade directly because the alternative is a series of revolts and foreign invasions in your territory (neighbors), and it's the only way to negotiate limits with the traders.
So in other words European presence has transformed African kingdoms into ones that had to rely on trade with Euros in order to survive. Or, dare I say... African slave kingdoms were built solely on trade with Europeans. Look I get it. You want to win an argument on the internet. But you can't just write what agrees with what I said and try to pass it off as a counterargument.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They toally could, they just didn't want to!
It's physically possible, but also prohibitively expensive and it doesn't serve a purpose. Portuguese derived much of their income from sailing to and from India to begin with. You wouldn't need to attack all of their holdouts to beat them either. Just make Venetians more competitive by securing the Mamluk Sultanate against Ottoman aggression. >That's what being a dominant power entails.
Anon, this is embarrassing. The Portuguese weren't a "Dominant power" when they landed in Malacca. They were only able to secure their position via an alliance with the nearby states, who wanted power there to be broken up to begin with, and who were able to benefit from the influxes of silver, since the Portuguese monopoly on trade with Europe meant they indirectly had all of Europe's purchasing power behind their transactions, leading to gross overspending. >If Indonesians or Indians had good enough ships, they would be headed directly to Europe and they would want to exploit the price revolution.
No, they'd be sending ships and petitions to the Ottoman Sultans, demanding they lower trade barriers and let the natural advantage of the Silk Road weigh in instead of trying to choke out Europe. >It is, because at the time when first banks and stock exchanges were sprouting across Europe, Chinks had no financial instruments to stop it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China#Early_Chinese_banks
Read up. >So in other words European presence has transformed African kingdoms into ones that had to rely on trade with Euros in order to survive.
Still no. They just had to gain control over an existing trade, which was easy enough. The presence of Maldivian currency is what destabilized them, and that still has nothing to do with tech or institutions.
You lost with the first post, and each response of yours has been intentional misunderstanding to pretend you had a point. Please stop.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but also prohibitively expensive and it doesn't serve a purpose.
The purpose is getting mad $$$ from spice trade that Portuguese were making. >Portuguese derived much of their income from sailing to and from India to begin with.
Yes, and? If South Asians had ships to match it would be their trade fleets, not Portuguese, bringing spices to Europe and you'd have buddhist pagodas built in Bordeaux and Hamburg, not christian cathedrals built in Goa and Macau. >The Portuguese weren't a "Dominant power" when they landed in Malacca.
Since Wikipedia is apparently a good enough source for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Malacca_(1511)
And since it isn't a good enough source for me:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41105726 >They were only able to secure their position via an alliance with the nearby states, who wanted power there to be broken up to begin with
That's what a dominant power is. US is "only" able to secure its position in South America by exploiting rivalries between local states. The British were "only" able to secure their presence in India by exploiting rivalries between the princes. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China#Early_Chinese_banks >Read up.
As you wish: >Under the Ming dynasty in the 1440s, the confidence in fiat money was so undermined that China abandoned the Da-Ming Baochao paper money around 1445. The latter Ming and Qing dynasties both regressed to commodity money in response. The single whip tax reform by Grand Secretary Zhang Juzheng's in 1581 had mandated the payment of taxes to be made in bulk silver only, this reform had re-energised the exchange shop business.[2]
1/2
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The purpose is getting mad $$$ from spice trade that Portuguese were making.
They were already at the center of the spice trade. >Yes, and? If South Asians had ships to match it would be their trade fleets, not Portuguese, bringing spices to Europe and you'd have buddhist pagodas built in Bordeaux and Hamburg
Wrong. They can count on others to come and move their goods across the ocean for them, since they're not suffering from any particular lack. They just need to control the production of spices. It's why Britain, despite being the most active partner in its trade with China, felt threatened enough by said trade to initiate the Opium Wars. >Since Wikipedia is apparently a good enough source for you:
Look at the numbers in brackets. Those are the sources. >That's what a dominant power is.
No, that's a dependent. They rely on other local powers to even remain present. >US is "only" able to secure its position in South America by exploiting rivalries between local states.
No, it uses rebellions within states for that. >The British were "only" able to secure their presence in India by exploiting rivalries between the princes.
No, they directly made a puppet out of the monarch over the richest portion of the subcontinent, then hired mercenaries to consolidate nearby areas during a power vacuum.
Neither of those cases are similar. >Under the Ming dynasty in the 1440s, the confidence in fiat money was so undermined that China abandoned the Da-Ming Baochao paper money around 1445.
So you see this isn't a tech matter of lack of institutional development, but an avoidable lapse in the market due to poor policy, and associated regression.
Dishonest scum.
Pic related
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but also prohibitively expensive and it doesn't serve a purpose.
The purpose is getting mad $$$ from spice trade that Portuguese were making. >Portuguese derived much of their income from sailing to and from India to begin with.
Yes, and? If South Asians had ships to match it would be their trade fleets, not Portuguese, bringing spices to Europe and you'd have buddhist pagodas built in Bordeaux and Hamburg, not christian cathedrals built in Goa and Macau. >The Portuguese weren't a "Dominant power" when they landed in Malacca.
Since Wikipedia is apparently a good enough source for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Malacca_(1511)
And since it isn't a good enough source for me:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41105726 >They were only able to secure their position via an alliance with the nearby states, who wanted power there to be broken up to begin with
That's what a dominant power is. US is "only" able to secure its position in South America by exploiting rivalries between local states. The British were "only" able to secure their presence in India by exploiting rivalries between the princes. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China#Early_Chinese_banks >Read up.
As you wish: >Under the Ming dynasty in the 1440s, the confidence in fiat money was so undermined that China abandoned the Da-Ming Baochao paper money around 1445. The latter Ming and Qing dynasties both regressed to commodity money in response. The single whip tax reform by Grand Secretary Zhang Juzheng's in 1581 had mandated the payment of taxes to be made in bulk silver only, this reform had re-energised the exchange shop business.[2]
1/2
(cont.) >Two major types of early Chinese banking institutions are piaohao and qianzhuang. The first nationwide private financial system, so-called "draft banks" or piaohao was created by the Shanxi merchants during the Qing dynasty. [3] Smaller scale local banking institutions called qianzhuang, more often cooperated than competed with Piaohao in China's financial market.
The article fails to mention when did those institutions develop. Fortunately the "Shanxi merchants" one reads: >Origin of Shanxi Banks >There is still no consensus on the details of origin of Shanxi Banks. Most scholars believe that the Shanxi banks are a native innovation from China,[3] while some western scholars (initially proposed by Randall Morck) hypothesize a potential influence from Russia or Britain.[4] >Rishengchang, the first draft bank or piaohao (票號), originated from Xiyuecheng Dye Company Pingyao in central Shanxi.[5] Rishengchang was estimated to be founded during the Qing Dynasty in 1823. However, the exact founding year remains controversial, some scholars argue it was found in 1797 or 1824.[6]
Eh? Anon, don't tell me you just pulled up a Wikipedia article and didn't even bother to check if it agrees with you? That's just embarassing. >Still no. They just had to gain control over an existing trade, which was easy enough.
That doesn't in any way contradict my statement. >The presence of Maldivian currency is what destabilized them, and that still has nothing to do with tech or institutions.
As we just established earlier in case of China having financial instruments to control inflation has everything to do with both tech and institutions. >You lost with the first post, and each response of yours has been intentional misunderstanding to pretend you had a point.
No. you just fundemantally misunderstand what terms such as "dominant power" or "technological advantage" mean. >Please stop.
No. This is fun.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The purpose is getting mad $$$ from spice trade that Portuguese were making.
They were already at the center of the spice trade. >Yes, and? If South Asians had ships to match it would be their trade fleets, not Portuguese, bringing spices to Europe and you'd have buddhist pagodas built in Bordeaux and Hamburg
Wrong. They can count on others to come and move their goods across the ocean for them, since they're not suffering from any particular lack. They just need to control the production of spices. It's why Britain, despite being the most active partner in its trade with China, felt threatened enough by said trade to initiate the Opium Wars. >Since Wikipedia is apparently a good enough source for you:
Look at the numbers in brackets. Those are the sources. >That's what a dominant power is.
No, that's a dependent. They rely on other local powers to even remain present. >US is "only" able to secure its position in South America by exploiting rivalries between local states.
No, it uses rebellions within states for that. >The British were "only" able to secure their presence in India by exploiting rivalries between the princes.
No, they directly made a puppet out of the monarch over the richest portion of the subcontinent, then hired mercenaries to consolidate nearby areas during a power vacuum.
Neither of those cases are similar. >Under the Ming dynasty in the 1440s, the confidence in fiat money was so undermined that China abandoned the Da-Ming Baochao paper money around 1445.
So you see this isn't a tech matter of lack of institutional development, but an avoidable lapse in the market due to poor policy, and associated regression.
Dishonest scum.
Pic related
(cont.) >The article fails to mention when did those institutions develop.
Irrelevant. They weren't the first. They're just convenient because they're named. >Eh? Anon, don't tell me you just pulled up a Wikipedia article and didn't even bother to check if it agrees with you?
Try looking at the whole thing next time. >That's just embarassing.
Why are you acting like an anime character? >That doesn't in any way contradict my statement.
See the other part of the sentence. >As we just established earlier in case of China having financial instruments to control inflation has everything to do with both tech and institutions.
You imagined your own victory, poor fool. In this case, an administrative presence in ports and along rivers was sufficient. >No. you just fundemantally misunderstand what terms such as "dominant power" or "technological advantage" mean.
Please give a definition for each consistent with your arguments. "Dominant power" means having control of a trading town, and depending on the goodwill of neighboring states to remain? "Technological advantage" means being centuries late to discover a method? Or is it literally just finding a massive source of a region's currency? >No. This is fun.
You're just undermining yourself with each argument. Why don't you at least try being right? Are you lonely or something?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Wrong. They can count on others to come and move their goods across the ocean for them,
Everyone wants to be the middleman. All profits that Portuguese were making on spice trade could be derived by somebody else. Are you daft or simply skitting around the issue? >since they're not suffering from any particular lack.
Just to give an example, the Vijyanagaras sure would love to make do with extra cash when their power was declining in the latter half of 16th century. >They rely on other local powers to even remain present.
The Portuguese conquered the three most important ports on the Indian Ocean by 1515. They've fricking destroyed Moloccan Sultanate. You can't pretend otherwise. >Look at the numbers in brackets. Those are the sources.
Funny. I have checked the source that I hoped would mention banking under Song dynasty, but it has only mentioned earliest use of paper money. This is why I don't like Wikipedia. >So you see this isn't a tech matter of lack of institutional development, but an avoidable lapse in the market due to poor policy, and associated regression.
My dude. The Romans have invented the institution of fair courts with defendants defense, presumption of innocence and all that noise, but it wouldn't be reintroduced to Europe until the Inquisition did so partially in 16th century. You can't pretend Europe had fair courts in the middle ages just because Romans used to one day. Similiarly, Chinks had good and well developed shipbuilding which allowed them to reach Africa under Zheng He. But since they've burned it all in 16th century and Chinese navy wasn't rebuilt until the 20th, you can't pretend Chinese shipbuilding was advanced when Brits literally blew their junks out of the water during Opium Wars
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You imagined your own victory, poor fool.
Somehow, when I mentioned Chinese banking being worse than European and this having disastrous effects, you didn't try to argue that it's not an institutional issue. Suddenly, when you can't try to defend Africans on it, it isn't. And I'm the dishonest one here? >In this case, an administrative presence in ports and along rivers was sufficient.
I see. So your argument is that African slave trade was actually detrimental to them and they tried to limit it by taking part in it, and they succeeded so it actually never happened. And all of that was due to inflation which was caused by trade with Maldives but not by Euros who were the only ones directly trading with both Africa and India and also didn't happen because African port administration was sufficient. Got it. Gotta tell African Americans that they don't exist. >"Dominant power" means having control of a trading town, and depending on the goodwill of neighboring states to remain?
"Dominant power" means being biggest power in the area by a large margin. For instance, Indian and Indonesian states having to contend with unquestioned Portuguese dominance of the Indian Ocean makes the Portuguese a dominant power. They don't have to control every port in the Indian Ocean (like Aden or Calicut) to be one. >"Technological advantage" means being centuries late to discover a method? Or is it literally just finding a massive source of a region's currency?
"Technological adavantage" means having a well developed infrastructure (i.e. gunsmiths, bankers, officers) that allows a nation superior capabilites (such as having better guns, ships, tactics) or control (such as prevent smugling, tax certain goods, embargo, partially control inflation) with little additional costs. >You're just undermining yourself with each argument. Why don't you at least try being right? Are you lonely or something?
If you don't want your moronic takes to be scrutinized, then don't share them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Everyone wants to be the middleman.
That's false. Also, it assumes monarchs have some nationalistic parental relationship with local merchants. They often don't. >All profits that Portuguese were making on spice trade could be derived by somebody else.
And you can benefit from the trade just by being the market the Portuguese spend stupid amounts for spice on. Even moreso since, as the monarch, you can tax all trade within your borders. >Are you daft or simply skitting around the issue?
You have no understanding of pre-modern trade. >Just to give an example, the Vijyanagaras sure would love to make do with extra cash when their power was declining in the latter half of 16th century.
It would've been an insignificant amount, and it wouldn't have come close to solving their problems. >The Portuguese conquered the three most important ports on the Indian Ocean by 1515.
Important for whom? >They've fricking destroyed Moloccan Sultanate
Funny thing: After the Portuguese took the city of Malacca, Asian traders largely avoided the city, and it declined. Instead, Johor, founded by the descendants of Malacca's rulers, took a large part of the trade back. All the Portuguese did was fracture the sultanate. >Funny. I have checked the source that I hoped would mention banking under Song dynasty, but it has only mentioned earliest use of paper money.
Anon, paper money is an extension of a banking practice. Fiat currency exists to lubricate the market and mask inflation. That IS the evidence you're looking for. >But since they've burned it all in 16th century and Chinese navy wasn't rebuilt until the 20th, you can't pretend Chinese shipbuilding was advanced when Brits literally blew their junks out of the water during Opium Wars
Well, since I know how to distinguish between Qing and Ming, and since institutions and tech are linear in EU4, your argument is moot.
(cont.) >Somehow, when I mentioned Chinese banking being worse than European and this having disastrous effects, you didn't try to argue that it's not an institutional issue.
No, because I didn't need to. The more important and informative thing is establishing the truth about the development of banking practices. >Suddenly, when you can't try to defend Africans on it, it isn't.
An argument from silence doesn't make a contradiction. >I see. So your argument is that African slave trade was actually detrimental to them and they tried to limit it by taking part in it, and they succeeded so it actually never happened
Scratch "so it actually never happened". >And all of that was due to inflation which was caused by trade with Maldives but not by Euros
Didn't say that either. I said Maldivian inflation isn't a matter related to EU4's tech or institutions. Again, enjoy your influence modifier. >"Dominant power" means being biggest power in the area by a large margin.
So, Portugal decidedly wasn't that in any of its colonies. >"Technological adavantage" means having a well developed infrastructure (i.e. gunsmiths, bankers, officers) that allows a nation superior capabilites (such as having better guns, ships, tactics) or control (such as prevent smugling, tax certain goods, embargo, partially control inflation) with little additional costs.
You've rolled organizational and natural advantages into your definition. Additionally, it doesn't cover the major immediate factors I outlined earlier. >If you don't want your moronic takes to be scrutinized, then don't share them.
If you're going to do something, do it correctly. You don't have any meaningful insights, so all you can do is twist words around or fabricate arguments from the lack of an argument. This conversation is done. Enjoy your last (You).
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Everyone wants to be the middleman.
That's false. Also, it assumes monarchs have some nationalistic parental relationship with local merchants. They often don't. >All profits that Portuguese were making on spice trade could be derived by somebody else.
And you can benefit from the trade just by being the market the Portuguese spend stupid amounts for spice on. Even moreso since, as the monarch, you can tax all trade within your borders. >Are you daft or simply skitting around the issue?
You have no understanding of pre-modern trade. >Just to give an example, the Vijyanagaras sure would love to make do with extra cash when their power was declining in the latter half of 16th century.
It would've been an insignificant amount, and it wouldn't have come close to solving their problems. >The Portuguese conquered the three most important ports on the Indian Ocean by 1515.
Important for whom? >They've fricking destroyed Moloccan Sultanate
Funny thing: After the Portuguese took the city of Malacca, Asian traders largely avoided the city, and it declined. Instead, Johor, founded by the descendants of Malacca's rulers, took a large part of the trade back. All the Portuguese did was fracture the sultanate. >Funny. I have checked the source that I hoped would mention banking under Song dynasty, but it has only mentioned earliest use of paper money.
Anon, paper money is an extension of a banking practice. Fiat currency exists to lubricate the market and mask inflation. That IS the evidence you're looking for. >But since they've burned it all in 16th century and Chinese navy wasn't rebuilt until the 20th, you can't pretend Chinese shipbuilding was advanced when Brits literally blew their junks out of the water during Opium Wars
Well, since I know how to distinguish between Qing and Ming, and since institutions and tech are linear in EU4, your argument is moot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That's false. Also, it assumes monarchs have some nationalistic parental relationship with local merchants. They often don't.
Yet another way in which Western European states were more developed than Asian ones. >And you can benefit from the trade just by being the market the Portuguese spend stupid amounts for spice on. Even moreso since, as the monarch, you can tax all trade within your borders.
Skitting around the issue then.Benefit from taxes < Benefit from taxes + mad benefit from trade that Portuguese had >It would've been an insignificant amount
Insignificant amount > 0 >Important for whom?
For traders, of course. >Funny thing: After the Portuguese took the city of Malacca, Asian traders largely avoided the city, and it declined.
Oh good, I see we're going from "Portuguese could only be there out of natives' goodwill", to "They could only destroy". I accept this concession. >Well, since I know how to distinguish between Qing and Ming, and since institutions and tech are linear in EU4, your argument is moot.
Since I know that it was Ming who burned the ships, my argument stands firm. >Scratch "so it actually never happened".
African slave trade was actually detrimental to them and they tried to limit it by taking part in it, and they succeeded but it happened anyway. Makes about as much sense. >isn't a matter related to EU4's tech or institutions
Diplomatic tech 5 - Basic Financial Instruments:
"Overseas trade is very risky but also highly profitable. The development of financial instruments like letters of credit will help reduce the risk, increasing our profits." >You've rolled organizational and natural advantages into your definition.
Organizational - yes, abobawdely, why wouldn't I? >This conversation is done. Enjoy your last (You).
Bye.
2 years ago
Anonymous
holy you btfo the chink, good job, just be careful the secret police doesnt get to you
now if you excuse me, its time to anhiliate chinks in the best paradox game, victoria 2. better start working cheng, or else there will be no more dogmeat for you!
2 years ago
Anonymous
great job btfoing the chink. with my newfound motivation; im starting a crimeamod campaign to enslave and turn chinks into industrial cogs right NOW
2 years ago
Anonymous
"Just bow out" look whos talking, chang
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Portugese could only become an important player in the Indian ocean because the region was divided and because they had many local allies they could play out against other locals, in fact the way the Dutch broke their "dominance" was mainly through stealing portugese allies (and allying everyone that had been displeased by the "Portuguese" status quo) on land european dominance would come much later. >China got fricked over
Again because of internal support for those european elements. Without locals the euros couldn't shit: japan eventually kicked the portuguese/spanish out and china had little trouble holding the dutch at bay. In these cases it was actually the asians playing different europeans against each other.
The tech gap being really small is realistic until the late 17th century.
2 years ago
Anonymous
"NOOOOO US CHENGS COULD HAVE DEFEATED THE WHITE DOGS IF ONRY THOSE DAMN TRAITORS WOURDNT HAVE TRADED WITH THEM!!!!!"
Which is the exact opposite of how they should work. Except in naval tech, Europe should be more or less level with the developed states of Asia/the Middle East until the late 1600s when they stagnate and Europe pulls away.
it hasn't been like that for 10 years now. time to stop whining, no one is confused as to the model anymore. the child in the illustration would not have been born the last time buying a paradox basegame was enough
Is there a GS where all combat is handled by competent AI? I want something where the only player input is to list vague campaign goals, and a bunch of generals will either do it for you, call you an idiot but do it anyway and get your entire army routed, or just refuse and start a coup to depose you.
>a bunch of generals will either do it for you, call you an idiot but do it anyway and get your entire army routed, or just refuse and start a coup to depose you
not a strategy but Suzerain has all of these
I'll place my knapsack on my back
My rifle on my shoulder
I'll march away to the firing line
And kill that Yankee soldier
And kill that Yankee soldier
I'll march away to the firing line
And kill that Yankee soldier
I'll bid farewell to my wife and child
Farewell to my aged mother
And go and join in the bloody strife
Till this cruel war is over
Till this cruel war is over
I'll go and join in the bloody strife
Till this cruel war is over
If I am shot on the battlefield
And I should not recover
Oh, who will protect my wife and child
And care for my aged mother
And care for my aged mother
Oh, who will protect my wife and child
And care for my aged mother
And if our Southern cause is lost
And Southern rights denied us
We'll be ground beneath the tyrant's heel
For our demands of justice
For our demands of justice
We'll be ground beneath the tyrant's heel
For our demands of justice
Before the South shall bow her head
Before the tyrants harm us
I'll give my all to the Southern cause
And die in the Southern army
And die in the Southern army
I'll give my all to the Southern cause
And die in the Southern army
If I must die for my home and land
My spirit will not falter
Oh, here's my heart and here's my hand
Upon my country's altar
Upon my country's altar
Oh, here's my heart and here's my hand
Upon my country's altar
Then Heaven be with us in the strife
Be with the Southern soldier
We'll drive the mercenary horde
Beyond our Southern border
Beyond our Southern border
We'll drive the mercenary horde
Beyond our Southern border
So, I'll place my knapsack on my back
My rifle on my shoulder
I'll march away to the firing line
And kill that Yankee soldier
And kill that Yankee soldier
I'll march away to the firing line
And kill that Yankee soldier
moronic assfricks want to be able to win every game by out microing the brain dead AI.
Sorry morons! You will not be able to lure the AI into attacking you in the mountains in this game! LMFAO!
moronic assfricks want to be able to win every game by out microing the brain dead AI.
Sorry morons! You will not be able to lure the AI into attacking you in the mountains in this game! LMFAO!
>Jewel of the East DLC >Bandeirantes DLC >Rising Eagle DLC >Blood and Steel DLC >Heirs of Ali DLC >Ivory Kings DLC >Manifestos DLC >Art and War DLC >Robber Barons DLC >Children of Polesia DLC >Wisdom of the Ulema DLC >Rolling Rubles DLC >Men and Kings DLC >Heirs of Rome DLC >Shadow of Napoleon DLC >Unit Packs
Small family company, please understand.
People might complain about it but I universally quit every Victoria 3 campaign once it got to the world war period. I just cannot be assed to micro. HOI2-HOI3 seem fun and they're all micro but I'm to small brained to play them rn but they're different because they make that micro actually interesting and it's not trying to be anything else besides a wargame
What you sniveling little anal cumdumps dont understand is that Vic3 is NOT being designed for you. Despite its name it is not the successor to Vic2. It is a totally different game being designed for a completely different market.
I could tell you more but you contrarian asswipes are too conceited to listen to sense.
Okay, you sound trustworthy and are possibly not a transsexual. But I will only tell you if you promise not to tell everyone, this sort of information could get both of us cancelled and permanently banned from facebook. Being friends with Elon Musk won't even help.
So, have you ever observed normies in da wildee? You have played Runescape right? Da wildee? As the Chads called it back in the day when pvp actually meant having testicles. Anyway, normies... That's right, they are all on their fricking phones. Mobile gaming is huge and only getting huger. Pdx is positioning itself to enter the mobile market, leaving you pirating deadbeats and you forever whining malcontents behind. FOREVER!
Vic3 is an intermediate step in porting to mobile.
Pdx made an interesting discovery when they introduced grand strategy games. The real paying customers are not the grognards and wargamers. No. The real gold is in the morons and casuals. In the dark and dank bunkers of Pdx HQ the call went out...
"THAR BE GOLD IN THEM MORONS!"
So we got two things. moronic role playing, dumbing down, and DLC. As evidenced by the likes of ck, hoi4 and eu4. Actually that is three things. But I did that intentionally to throw off the CIA agents who are probably onto us by now. Frick.
Now mark my words well, young whippersnapper, the moment Vic3 comes it will be immediately followed up by the mobile version. The PC version will exist purely to sort the bugs out and gauge reaction. After you viscous but stupid little bastards have paid for the privilege of helping Pdx iron out the bugs and refine game mechanics they will be set to unleash Vic 3 onto the mobile market.
The three buttons you see? Now it all makes sense. But there is more. Much more. Stuff that will make your spine crawl and go off frantically searching for comfort food in the kitchen. I will tell you if you can confirm that you are still a free man, and not holed away in some wienerroach infested cell in South America by now.
Each member being a high-IQ strategist, the patrons of /vst/ are known for their intellectual debates.The bickering of other boards are beneath us, what with their "on topic" shenanigans. In /vst/ we take pride in discussing the true mechanisms of the world, for understanding those brings us closer to achieving true enightenment and comprehension of strategy.
To make the new hands off war system work they would have to design it with the philosophy of it being a simulation that the player has to nudge with high level commands into getting the best outcome, similar to how the economic gameplay of 2 works. Unfortunately they've decided against that philosophy altogether so they didn't build any real simulation into it, and and didn't give the player much input either.
I've not played GoY4, but surely if the Vicky 3 team actually doubled down on making the warfare system more abstract/high level so that it didn't need to be so strictly tied to the map itself they'd have an easier time making commands like that work.
Of course I'm fooling myself and we all know it would just be stacking modifiers to the attack and defend values.
I sincerely don't understand any of this. Paradox has done this with one of their most complex strategy games they've ever made and bootlickers are eating their shit like some new breakthrough in gaming has been achieved. The fact that they defend it so hard just proves how far the company has fallen.
Honestly making warfare more abstract in general in Vic/EU would allow for more historical and interesting stuff. I've always hated how much of warfare is raw numbers in PDX games. Vic2 is one of the better ones but even then, Euro army sizes in Asia are exaggerated (there were 13,000 Brits and 7,000 French in total in the Second Opium War, for example.)
>Honestly making warfare more abstract in general in Vic/EU would allow for more historical and interesting stuff
I agree. They could've took the opportunity to build something genuinely good instead of Fricking Nothing to be built upon later with a handful of disjointed and half assed DLCs. But alas
>Euro army sizes in Asia are exaggerated
Asian army sizes in Asia are exaggerated. By 19th century half of the million-strong Qing army were ghost soldiers that existed as a salary scam, and the other half was mostly people who refused to leave their home provinces even if their generals agreed to send them which they usually didn't. Literally everyone but the Hui weren't guaranteed to show up to a fight, even the original Manchu banners.
>Imagine trying to explain this with EU4 logic.
Corrupt Military: +100% army maintenance and reinforcement cost, -33% land speed, -25% discipline, each regiment is know tied to a specific region and takes a monthly -0.25 penalty to maximum morale, down to -50% of the total value when outside it, which is restored at a +0.25 per month when within the region.
Honestly only the last part would be tricky to implement.
10 years, they had 10 YEARS to put hoi3 levels of combat polish into their game. That's all it needed, aside from a few bugs just that, and it's fricking worse. What a joke.
>Westerners only succeeded by taking advantage of the divided East
Oh yes, as we all know, Europe was known for its great political unity. The great Empire of Portugal never had to deal with rivals by its home turf, unlike poor exploited China.
Wrong. The "Stand By" order means you let women and homosexuals seize control of your country while third world immigrants pour in and are given everything your ancestors fought and died for.
I was going to make an intelligent and reasonable comment but then I remembered I am on /vst/, a board mostly inhabited by children, morons, trolls, contrarians, and poorly educated pigfrickers. So I stopped and thus saved myself the effort.
As a result I have the pleasure of not coming back to this thread only to find some mental midget has made a ludicrously stupid reply to my well thought out and on topic comment.
Nor am I going to find some dumbfrick esl idiot has written some incomprehensible gibberish in reply to my eloquent post. Nor will some fricked up schizo have made a "lmao tldr moron!" comment directed at my reasonable commentary on Vic3.
No, they will only find this post. Which doesn't discuss Vic3 at all.
I am so pleased with this result that I am going to give myself a treat for having saved myself the effort. I am going to grill a cheese and onion sandwich and get a long glass of cold chocolate milk. A far more better use of my resources as I am sure the very few intelligent readers of this post will agree.
>chocoate syrup or are you a premade gay?
Depends on what's to hand. Sometimes the b***h buys the wrong stuff. Doesn't matter how much I slap her around, she doesn't seem to learn.
a cheese and onion sandwich >Are you talking about making a grilled cheese sandwich?
No. I am talking about a fricking grilled cotton and dog poo sandwich. You dense c**t.
autism speaks: the post
You will never have my intellectual powers, nor my education. Your literary "competence" will consist of throwing out tired old one line memes at best. You are inferior. Furthermore you know this and it makes you mad.
Misc Potted.
Very good. I can see you are an educated person of discerning tastes. Unlike most of the filthy riff raff that foul this place with their loutish antics. Come, let us have a snifter of Brandy and discuss the finer cinematic points of Citizen Kane while throwing the odd passing remark upon Victoria 3, just to keep the plebs happy.
>Depends on what's to hand. Sometimes the b***h buys the wrong stuff.
That's a shame anon. I can understand the frustration of having the wrong milk or brand and then the flavor being fricked up. Hopefully your mother gets better at remembering though.
>No. I am talking about a fricking grilled cotton and dog poo sandwich. You dense c**t.
You'll have to forgive me, anon. Your wording was somewhat vague in the initial post, and colloquially most people simply use the term "grilled cheese." As such I was unsure of whether you were indeed talking about grilled cheese and your second language is English (and thus were unaware of the proper phrasing to use) or whether the meal in question was something similar but ultimately distinct from a grilled cheese sandwich.
Ikr. I suppose I could go and buy the right chocolate milk myself, but Jesus, that means having to go outside. But its okay, over the years I have built up a tolerance to lower quality shit. Its a hardship but I just grin and bear it like a Man. I still give the b***h a slap though, otherwise she would get uppity.
I have decided to forgive your trespass against all decency regarding the grilled sandwich. These things are very important to me, especially since they form a major part of my nutritional intake. I really shouldn't have flown off the handle against you. I should make amends. As a result I am going to donate $5 from my mother's credit card to some fricking charity that helps out in shitty third countries. After the administrators take 95% of my donation for their grossly inflated salaries, perhaps a few cents will trickle down to your village. Who knows? Perhaps my contribution will assist in building your next wienerroach infested mud hut.
I appreciate the offer dear anon, but I'm afraid I have no need of your money. In the civilized world where English is primarily spoken (I'm assuming you are not from here based on your writings, and I guess that you are from these "third countries," whatever that means) we do not have mud huts or wienerroach infestation as you believe to be common, and five dollars is actually quite a small sum of money. I am sorry to hear that you live in such poor conditions and think that it is the norm, but worry not my dear friend, for if you are willing I may be able to adopt you as a member of my household and pay for your flight where I could perhaps educate you about the English-speaking world. Would this not be a most amenable offer to you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Unfortunately I must refuse your kind offer, my dear friend. Much as it pains me to tell you, I must inform you that you are suffering from delusions. For you see, and please take this in the spirit of a friend merely informing you of reality, I am quite the civilized gentlemen while you are in fact a poor ignorant guttersnipe who scrounges for food scraps amidst the tepid filth of your appalling country's streets. But fear not for your preservation, for at this moment the happy tax payers of enlightened nations, such as mine, have undertaken to eradicate the worse of the vile diseases which bring so much calamity upon your people. Leprosy. Ebola. Malaria. AIDS. Soon all these will be a thing of the past under the auspices of international Aid agencies. As you grow to be a nubile and active young man you will not fear the debilitating effects of HIV when attempting to lift yourself out of poverty. Fare well my friend.
...oh, and God bless.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I regret to inform you sir, but you appear to, once again, be projecting your unfortunate reality onto the entire world, believing your situation to be a common occurence. As you have refused my generous offer to educate you on the ways of the world, I suppose I could at least make do with informing you of your misconceptons. One such misconception you have is that food is a scarce resource in English-speaking nations. In the civilized part of the world, food is both plentiful and easy to aquire. In fact, English-speaking countries often have more issues with peasants becoming too fat, rather than starving. While I am sure that in your tribe it may be quite difficult to procure a sufficient amount of food to survive and that one may need to "[scrounge] for food scraps amidst the tepid filth" as you put it, in civilized nations it would actually take considerably more effort to starve than to become obese. With these clarifications I hope that you have become more informed about the English-speaking world. I believe that if you do ever choose to accept my offer, you would be able to adjust well since it seems that your English vocabulary is quite advanced, despite still struggling to fully understand the correct application or meaning of some of these words. Nevertheless, I eagerly await your next correspondence.
2 years ago
Anonymous
My dear fellow.
I was delighted to receive your correspondence the other day. My wife and I were sitting at the old mahogany dining table, enjoying high tea, when the servant brought us your tattered parchment tidings.
"Oh look!" said I "Our dear little chum from across the ocean has sent us another tale! How grand!"
"I must say he is a delightful chap, let's do hope he doesn't get eaten by a hippo or something ghastly like that" my wife wistfully replied.
"I dare say the poor blighter might be more at risk from the local witch doctor than from any wayward beast" I responded.
"I say, wouldn't it be just a lovely idea to invite him over here for a sojourn? He could sleep in the servants quarters and you could show him all sorts of wonderful things. Like knives and forks, books, and shoes!'
"Well, just so long as he doesn't go chucking spears around when visitors arrive. Remember the Wrights are coming next month to discuss setting up a new trading venture in the colonies. Wouldn't want them being impaled and eaten."
"No, I do suppose not" astutely observed my wife.
Anyway, she had to leave for her weekly fox hunt, and so I was left to peruse your cuneiforms by myself, monocle in place, cigar in hand.
Cordial regards.
Your friend.
2 years ago
Anonymous
My dear friend, I must admit I was utterly shocked when you told me that you still use pen and paper! To think that such prmitive tools are still used around the world, quite frankly, baffles me. I did not know until now just how precarious your situation has been, to only have one computer for use in your entire tribe! If I may be so bold as to ask, who then relays these messages from the internet to your hut? You claim it is a servant, although I cannot help but think you are once again falling into your delusions once again. Perhaps it is a nephew, or some other young lad to whom you pay in seashells? Further yet, I cannot help but be offput by your last message, in which you claim to describe a conversation which mentions colonies of all things! I could not truly believe that the non-English-speaking world was still so uncivilized until you opened my eyes to the reality that this world is yet filled with delusions and a lack of technology. Despite this, I still eagerly await your next correspondence.
Between microing every building and factory and microing every brigade/division only the braniacs at PDX could have decided the former is appropriate but the latter isn't. HoI3 let you delegate as much of your military to AI as you wanted to, Vicky 2 did the same for economy. But no let's have the worst of both worlds where Bismarck is personally responsible for building dirt roads in Kamerun but not anything to do with fighting at Sedan.
Seriously? There is no way to get rid of them? Can I atleast bait them into mass rebellion to slaughter them or side with my people when a progrom happens like in Vicky 2?
If any of you want an idea of how this three button system works out then just play any paradox game that lets you place the AI in command of your armies. Do it. Load up a game and let the AI take command of your armies. Press unpause and then sit back and watch the most incredible harebrained arsefrickery unfold. That's what Vic3 will be like, only instead of watching your AI armies run around like headless chickens doing all sorts of stupid shit, it will all be abstracted, so you cant see the immense moronation involved.
no idea. I'm playing a game as colombia and usually I follow my IRL morals with how I play solo but i want to make a totalitarian monarchy so I need to learn how to import more slaves as well
Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now thats just what I am
And for this yankee nation
I do no give a damn
I'm glad I fought against her
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done
I hates the Yankee nation
And eveything they do
I hates the declaration
Of independence too
I hates the glorious union
'Tis dripping with our blood
I hates the striped banner
And fought it all I could
I rode with Robert E. Lee
For three years there about
Got wounded in four places
And I starved at Point Lookout
I caught the rheumatism
Campin' in the snow
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I'd like to kill some more
Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us
They died of southern fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got
I can't take up my musket
And fight 'em down no more
But I ain't a-goin' to love them
Now that is certain sure
And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am
I won't be reconstructed
And I do not give a damn
Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now that's just what I am
And for this Yankee nation
I do no give a damn
I'm glad I fought against her
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done...
How the frick do you get your Shogun 2 to look that good? Mine looks like melted play-doh. I've fought against you a few times too I think. And won.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'll boot up the game and screenshot the settings after dinner.
And was it a FotS army or an S2 army? My FotS army setup is a total meme with me trying to force an almost all-melee force which gets shut down against people who know meta fots setups and can micro their cav
2 years ago
Anonymous
>How the frick do you get your Shogun 2 to look that good?
I am really looking forward to Vic 3. We will have a new strategy game where winning isn't just beating the brain dead AI with micro. Its going to cause so many morons to have a complete mental breakdown because now they wont be able to jack off to their 'Me genius General!" power fantasies
That might cost Paradox a few customers, but they are the worse kind of customers Anyway having a truly meaningful new strategy game will attract a huge number of new players who were previously put off by the all the micro asshat antics
Now you just beat the braindead AI by clicking expand factory thousands of times.
Truly riveting. If you're terminally autistic and could enjoy watching paint dry.
if it pops off right away in 1836 out of nowhere its clearly some kind of scripted event
the current build probably functions as a demo to catapult you right into trying shit out like combat and not a proper sandboxy thing for final release
The problem OP and other subhumans have with 3 buttons is because they are used to luring the AI into attacking into mountains. They got away with this shit so often in the past that they cant imagine anything else. The new system in Vic 3 threatens their security, they know they will discover they are not military geniuses at all. This frightens them very much. So much so that they wet their beds at night.
LE MOUNTAIN CHEESE! LE CHEEESE! THIS JUSTIFIES GUTTING WARFARE!
Let's make every country a command economy in the era of lazy fair economics and free markets, and let's automate warfare in a time where politics fricked with the military and vice versa.
Frick me you're moronic.
>THIS JUSTIFIES GUTTING WARFARE!
There barely was warfare. You'd just look up the template online and then 9/10 times do reenforcing or throwing men at it untill you win. It is boring and you always know wether or not you will win beforehand.
>It is boring and you always know wether or not you will win beforehand
As opposed to substracting the magic military number of your enemy from yours before the war even starts?
>You'd just look up the template online
That's every game ever made, dipshit. People "looked up" chess openings back when your ancestors were still picking cotton.
Not any good game you absolute idiot. The whole point is that you should change your tactics and composition based on that which you are fighting which can also change. Have you ever played an actual strategy game?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Have you ever played an actual strategy game?
Evidently you didn't, since you consider rock-paper-scissors to be the pinnacle of the genre.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Unfortunately, Victoria 3 is nowhere like that fantasy you've imagined. It's literally bigger number wins.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Have you ever played an actual strategy game?
Evidently you didn't, since you consider rock-paper-scissors to be the pinnacle of the genre.
Literally both of you are making shit up I'm not saying you morons. I'm saying warfare in victoria 2 was totally shit and didn't even have the most basic elements of strategy in it. Victoria 3 is removing most of it untill they'll release an overpriced DLC.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the backdown
BTW I'd love for you to list out the most basic elements of strategy for us, you imbecile
>You'd just look up the template online
Army composition is one of the many things they could've made more interesting as part of making warfare more hands off, instead they just replaced "online template armies" with "pick the highest thing you've unlocked"
Look I understand it must be very upsetting for you to constantly wet yourself. But no matter how much you hate Victoria 3's superior design and how it will expose your inadequacy, you simply not be able to stop wetting your bed. Try using diapers.
Honestly ive always believed that vic2 was kinda bad in many apsects but its mainly due to being so old and there being only 2 small dlc but its fair to say vic 3 doesnt have this excuse and its gonna be bad as paradox have a monopoly on these games thus they can make everything shallow
Please if any of the devs that worked on designing the game's mechanics is lurking the thread and reading this, please have a nice day, ideally also kill any other of the designers you know. Considering you are most likely transsexual and that this outcome was highly probable anyway you might aswell speed it up and reduce the risk of you making shitty games in the future. Thank you, perhaps in taking my advice you may find a tiny glimmer of redemption.
Grand strategy games are sitting on the verge of a radical new breakthrough with Victoria 3. Actual GRAND STRATEGY. But it more than just an innovative approach, it will also rid the gaming community of those stupid little c**ts who think outsmarting AI armies is peak performance. Lets get one fact straight. Luring, outflanking, trapping and encircling AI armies is NOT smart. Its like outsmarting an insect. Yet the gaming community is full of highly vocal buttholes who think it is smart. They think they are the living reincarnation of Alexander the Great, or whatever historical military leader features in their gay masturbation fantasy. Victoria 3 will get rid of all that bullshit and all those stupid little buttholes, making for a far better community and far better gaming experience.
There will be grand strategy. Which is the level above where you place your units on the map. Not operational or campaign strategy. Not battlefield strategy. Not tactics. It will the the strategy of deciding who you go to war with and when and how best to prosecute that war according to the political and economic constraints you are now operating under because of your own past decisions.
It will be great.
>political and economic constraints
Newspeak for whatever meme laws you have implemented like gay syndicalism and your number of barracks buildings
I'm not even joking t. leaked beta player
Obviously the major facets of any grand strategy. How one directs the economy, where one projects influence, what alliances one makes, how one responds to domestic issues, how much to invest in the military...plus all the sub order considerations such as upgrading infrastructure, setting tax rates, expanding trade, implementing social programs, investing in education and technical innovations. All the sort of stuff that determines how and where military conflicts will arise and how effectively you will be able to cope with them.
Look, it will be great. Have faith. Paradox won't let us down.
> directing the economy > projecting influence > choosing alliances > how much to invest in the military
You do realise you can outwit the AI just as easily in all those things listed as you can by outsmarting the AI's army micro
Fricking Paradrones
>remove gameplay altogether >now the AI is immune to exploits
Truly, you are the greatest genius of our time. Greater than Einstein.
Paradox isn't a fricking small family company anymore, they could literally hire people for the sole purpose of making a decent AI that can see through units defending on mountains with stacks behind them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I'M THE AI EXPERT!
Change your bed sheets, dearie. You wet them. Again.
2 years ago
Anonymous
homie.
Paradox AI in their other games can literally see through fog of war.
Try arguing honestly instead of just endless fricking character attacks because you lack an actual leg to stand on.
2 years ago
Anonymous
morons like you will never amount to anything. Meanwhile smart people get shit done. That's the difference. Now put on some diapers.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You seem a tad obsessed with people disagreeing with you being incontinent. Is this some kind of degenerate fetish you're projecting onto us?
Again, you lack any actual real arguments, only attacking us with "haha bedwetter diaper hurr durrrrr" schoolyard-tier insults, because Vicky 3 is a bomb waiting to drop, and you know it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Its simple enough for even your pea brain to understand. Victoria 3 will be a superior game played by superior people. Inferior people like you have lost control over your bladder because you will no longer be able to cheese easy wins over the AI. This is the truth and you know it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Instead I can get easy wins over the AI by building 20 barracks, using the best "production method" (lmao) and clicking the advance button
2 years ago
Anonymous
>plays alpha release >click barracks! >I be General Patton now!
This is your brain when your mother smokes the borax spliced crack the black pimp gives her. How is your dad anyway?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>alpha build
It was a beta you disingenuous frick.
I wonder how much the game will change between now and the end of the year since it's a 2022 release?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Answer the question. How is your dad? He given you any side hustle running some of the other bints? Or he did he decide to peddle your ass too? That is when he's not using it for his own pleasure.
2 years ago
Anonymous
My dad's fine. I'd rather not dox myself, but we're on very good terms!
Now you answer a question of mine: why do you insist on defending this game when it has the strategic depth of a puddle?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>we're on very good terms!
Understandable since you give him free blow jobs.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Stop being such a homosexual. I see you're just busy dodging the question.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>sucks off his own father >calls someone a homosexual
The Irony. The post.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>projecting your own homosexual urges for your father onto others
2 years ago
Anonymous
>denial
The post.
How's them diapers coming along? Answer the question, b***h.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't wear diapers because I'm a functional adult human being, not some kind of incontinent moron or weird fetishist. Now you answer why you're defending this game when there's no fricking strategic depth to it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They're probably done adding/changing the game since it's in beta-stage and busy fixing shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>wiz diapergay confirmed
It all makes sense now. I bet that that he is behind the stellaris piss planet mod as well.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Stellapiss
Mios dios
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wiz is that you?
You took a massive shit Stellaris and you're gonna ruin Victoria 3
frick you ya swedish homosexual kys FRICK YOU
2 years ago
Anonymous
I unironically think someone at paradox posts here, sometimes I think someone is shit posting and then I get into a really long back and forth and realize they are actually mad.
>le remove all the best features and make the game boring as frick because Paradox can't program half decent AI >oh and make loads of cringy troony mobile graphics to distract from how empty and shallow this game is
Paradrones are truly subhumans
Obviously the major facets of any grand strategy. How one directs the economy, where one projects influence, what alliances one makes, how one responds to domestic issues, how much to invest in the military...plus all the sub order considerations such as upgrading infrastructure, setting tax rates, expanding trade, implementing social programs, investing in education and technical innovations. All the sort of stuff that determines how and where military conflicts will arise and how effectively you will be able to cope with them.
Look, it will be great. Have faith. Paradox won't let us down.
There will be grand strategy. Which is the level above where you place your units on the map. Not operational or campaign strategy. Not battlefield strategy. Not tactics. It will the the strategy of deciding who you go to war with and when and how best to prosecute that war according to the political and economic constraints you are now operating under because of your own past decisions.
It will be great.
As good as the bait was in the first post, that's a little too much effort in the followups so in case you really are that far gone I'll just say this: I don't think anyone disagrees that Vic2 warfare wasn't very good. The problem is that all the systems Vic3 add simply don't make up for the loss of Vic2's warfare. Hell, even Vic2's logistics system is more sophisticated than Vic3's, which woud have been the one thing I'd have expected Vic3 to improve on if they really did care about making warfare more of an economics game. But instead the entire thing simply boils down to clicking a barracks button 20 times, then clicking the "machine guns" button and now you tear through the enemy. Want better tech? Just click the university button 20 times and now your research is up by 200 points. Everything in the game is just clicking buttons to create new resources with little to no drawbacks/costs to spamming.
But... Bismarck never crushed the French at Sedan
He set up the situation to allow the French to be crushed at Sedan i.e. the Ems Dispatch and trolling the French public etc.
I dunno how much he did to help the Prussian military pioneer shit like wedding military deployment to railroad schedules or the concept of a general staff...
Vicky is a Bismarck Simulator, or Disraeli / Metternich simulator. Or it ought to be.
You are wasting your time pointing out historical facts to these monkeys. Their vision is really very primitive. They just want to outsmart the AI on a battlefield and larp as some great General. This is why they are so upset that warfare is being abstracted in Vic3. These low IQs dont even understand the difference between grand strategy and operational level warfare. They are morons and any attempt at educating them is a waste of effort.
I'm upset the entire game is being dumbed down, not just warfare.
I'm actually impressed that Paradox SOMEHOW managed to frick up everything, from the economy, to logistics (which would be a huge part of the vaunted hands-off warfare system that only exists in your mind) to warfare, naturally, to politics, which... honestly boggles my mind. Please stop shilling for these incompetent Swedish hacks.
You can only LARP as Lincoln and watch your frick-up generals play passively.
Any person here, if put in the same position of heading a country during war would make Stalinist purges look like a picnic. And personally strangle MacArthur and McClellan with their bare hands.
the degredation of arguments in favour of vic3: >actually it'll be REAL grand strategy >n-no stop pointing out there's no more strategy here than in tic-tac-toe you're a bedwetter and want to larp as le general
homie
i want a fricking game
one that's fun to play
not cookie clicker 2: victorian edition
i don't even care about "larping as general with fondue!!!" or whatever strawman you've cooked up
if they'd competently abstracted warfare and perhaps more importantly, made the rest of the fricking game systems engaging, and not made every single economy in the game under direct control of the state, and had not made politics into a literal fricking eu4 fort minigame, and so on and so forth
it's amazing how badly paradox, and probably specifically wiz, fricked this whole thing up
paradox COULD'VE made a decent hands-off warfare system but they fricked it up and all we have now are morons like you who've gaslit themselves into believing there's any depth to the new "strategy"
>all we have now are morons like you who've gaslit themselves into believing there's any depth to the new "strategy"
That's your mistake, he's the one gaslighting you into thinking anyone is excited for Vicky 3. He's not a paradrone or even a shill, he's just pretending to be one to make you upset. He knows the game is gonna be shit just as well as everybody else does. This is the state of 4chin now, we went from pretending to hate things to elicit reaction to pretending to like things nobody in their right mind would like to elicit reaction.
Are there people this autistic? Whenever I assume someone is trolling and keep responding they eventually breakdown and it becomes clear they believe in the bullshit they spew.
You forget that a lot of people on this board and on /vg/ instinctively hate anyone who ever liked any of the PDX games, so whatever makes you mad is their joy. It's schadenfreude masquerading as shilling, that's why it all eventually devolves into arguments like "CK2/Vicky 2 were dogshit anyway".
>he's the one gaslighting you into thinking anyone is excited for Vicky 3
People on basedddit and troonycord are exicted but I guess that doesn't translate into posting on here
>paradox COULD'VE made a decent hands-off warfare system but they fricked it up
I can't even tell at this point if the plan was always to attempt to make a decent hands off war system in an overpriced DLC (or several overpriced DLC) or if they actually think what they have now is even slightly good.
It's actually far more likely that the devs legitimately have their heads up their ass and are in complete denial of their stupid decisions. They unironically think that just about every change they've made to the game is for the better and aren't wiling to compromise.
The flag occupation looked pretty nice when I played as Lanfang in the leak, shame about every other tag though. The Prussian occupation looks much less bad than the Mexican one too
Though the idea that it conveys more info than the strips is so totally nonsense on it's face that Wiz must be insanely up his own ass to even think it's a plausible face saving lie. At best it conveys exactly the same information (who's occupying whom) except now you have to remember every flag to know who's doing the occupation. If I didn't know that was the flag of Mexico in the first pic how would I tell at a glance that Mexico is occupying it rather than say American rebels for a meme ideology who use a made up flag? In the colour model this would almost never be a issue because you'd be able to see the continuity between Mexico's colour and the occupation colour, all they have to do is not be morons putting countries with similar colours right next to each other. Who's actually occupying France in pic2? If they're not caring about making it look ugly it would unironically convey the information better to just write OCCUPIED BY homosexualISTAN over it.
dont even need to write occupied by, just put it in brackets or italics or something similar
or of course dont fix what isnt broke and instead work on more important things
I like the smoke graphics once many battles have been fought but I have no idea what I'm doing in war and the lack of vids about the game due to DMCA makes it worse
The lack of warfare and stockpile is going to be shit, and when they hit the announced disaster, they are going to blame the players. Been there, done that.
For major global conflicts involving multiple fronts, naval invasions and naval action, it might actually be enough for an engaging war. But for smaller, single front conflicts it will be very hands off and rather dull.
Personally I was never into Victoria 2 for the stack warfare, so it's not a dealbreaker for me. I do hope that this is simply the ground level for a more engaging military system that is an alternative to death stacks and that more player interaction is added over time.
What keeps me from playing Vicky 2 more is the extra 10 hours that get added onto a playthrough if you want optimal micro. Its soul crushing when you have to micro on multiple fronts
just wait till you find out v3 paradoxically has just as much micro, despite dumbing down the system and trying to make it more "streamlined"
>war about to begin
>need to individually raise armies from regions
>can't control amount, it's all or nothing
>can't combine armies, you need to send them to the front one by one
>give orders to individual armies one by one
and that's ignoring needing to manually set up your barracks, or having to babysit trade agreements each time some random country decides to import 100% of your ammunition without your consent
i suppose "securing logistics and supply lines" was the euphemism they used to describe this abomination
v3 isn't just going to disappoint the autists only, it's going to be detested by normalgays in a way not seen even in imperator
then paradox devs will 99% blame the leak, a couple token patches will be released out of principle and the game will become abandonware
cassandra
You forgot
>I guess people really didn't want another victoria game after all :^)
SATAN NO
>a couple token patches will be released out of principle and the game will become abandonware
That's what I predicted as well. When I posted it on the forums, they locked the thread. The devs are going to get exactly what they deserve.
> Darkest Hour and HOI3 had autopilot on boring things like economy and trade so you could focus on the fun grand strategy parts like diplomacy and war
> Vic3 has autopilot on the fun grand strategy parts like diplomacy and war so you could focus on the boring things like economy and trade
I'm even more mad because they're going to squander a beautiful map on a bland game once more. I just want to look at funny skyscrapers AND be assed to do more than that.
Economy is the fun part, in Vic2 I'm just trying to get the max industry score.
It makes no sense for they to add more micro without also making it possible to automate it all, like why wouldn't you give more options to the player? If victoria 2 had a hoi4 like army system it would be a much better game for example
really feels like we got monkeypawed with vic3
STOP YOUR LIES WHITE RUNNING DOG!
>oh my god I have to play the game???
just change your notification settings. i hat never cared about it and now i regret every second i played without it.
>Victoria 2’s war system wasn’t that good
>clearly the solution is to make it worse
For frick’s sake, they had so many ways to improve the combat from the previous game and this is what they do. I hope Johan is kicked out on the streets to starve when this flops.
>I do hope that this is simply the ground level for a more engaging military system
I hope you like paying $9.99 five times over for the DLCs that will make it playable
$9.99!? Royal Court DLC is $29.99
There's a sale going on & I took a quick look
No, not without a political compass.
I like the idea of hands-off warfare.
it's a shame paradox can't do the concept justice
literal BATTLE PROGRESS BAR lmao
Only one battle can happen at a time. so simplistic.
You're gonna love Realpolitiks then
As bad as it seems I still like that they're trying something new instead of the old formula. I imagine we're gonna see some changes to warfare over time as well, unless they drop it like Imperator.
How does giving a "stand by" order differ from giving a "defend" order?
Stand by is back at the barracks and not on the frontlines
So what happens if you want to defend the barracks?
an army can only fight at a front (aka border connection)
standby means "go back to the barrack so that i can deploy you to another front"
if there's no front, the army cannot be used. only exception to this are naval invasions
>2 button warfare
lol
just click the button, goy
i hope naval adds another 3 buttons as DLC
No, and the answer is obviously no. The warfare model in Victoria 3 is somehow going to be even worse than the warfare model in previous paradox titles.
It could work, but as of the leak armies don't actually exist anywhere on the map. You're not handing command of your troops to AI generals to handle the war; you're just allocating X troops to map paint in a certain direction. This means individual units can never be cut off, armies can't be encircled and destroyed for a decisive victory, and there's no meaningful difference in how big a front actually is so long as the troops there have high enough stats to win a battle.
Against an AI which is incapable of fighting its way out of a paper bag, that's a good thing.
>bad AI justifies bad war mechanics
How about they hire programmers worth a damn? Back in the 90s some autistic white nerd in a shed could crank out better AI.
back in the 90s games were simple enough that it was a million times easier to make a functional AI
Such shitty cope. How many more people are working on games now? How much more money do they have to start with compared indie dev #3000.
People who played the leak, were there any land logistic mechanics present? For instance in Russia-China war was there anything stopping either side from sending their entire armies to duke it out in Siberia? Or something preventing Peru-Brazil advancing over the Amazon and Andes as if it was North European Plain?
No logistics as far as I can tell. When I played Russia and started off in a diplo play to annex the kazakhs, China joined in (shows how dumb the diplo play feature is). I put 20 divisions on kazakhs and the remaining 100 or so on China, and absolutely no attrition was ever present. The only thing that I think caught me off guard was that China was able to send about 50 divisions per battle against my 7-10, but as it turns out all I had to do was upgrade my generals and suddenly I was able to get 20+ troops per battle and slaughter the Chinese. The whole war barely costed any money and there were no problems with reinforcing my troops except for the fact that I think I needed to send the armies back to HQ to get more divisions.
As for supplies, it's genuinely worse than pre-patch hoi4 where I'm pretty sure the only limiting factor is whether you have infrastructure level above 0. But even then, it's comically easy to fix since infrastructure just boils down to click button = railway, or by using authoritymana to tell your siberian population to build roads or something (which is more effective than 1 level of rails, by the way). Supplies don't even exist at all, since resources don't actually exist, which means any "shortage" of goods you need just costs some extra money and your soldiers don't suffer any penalties whatsoever. You'd think in a game supposedly about economics they'd make logistics actually a thing, but I guess not.
Suspected as much. Thanks.
Yes.
Only Poles get angry over three buttons.
Is this the absolute state of pro-Vicky 3 discourse?
>engaging in discourse about Vicky 3 at all
a hearty kek is all that is warranted anon
why the frick did they do this are there any Dev posts on it
Theres a leak you can play of this?
Yes. I've played it. And its the worst thing imagined.
They're going to make ulu wulu tribal nations actually competitive against European powers aren't they?
Yes they already did that in eu4 why wouldnt they do it here too
that only happened under player control, and it took a frickton of cheesing
shuddup
Uh have you never played eu4 the only tech difference is the institution meme which you have the enlightenment spread to the congo a couple years after it shows up in europe
Institutions were always a meme. They don't make any sense from the start. It's just a way to give Europe an initial foot-up.
bro last time I played EUIV the entire world was on the same level in institutions around 1700s and onwards. It was moronic as frick to see fricking tribal Africans with the same tech as Britain not to mention China would end up as a superpower every time. The first system which just gave a specific level of research disatvantage depending on region was stupid on paper but at least made it more realistic later in the campaign.
>bro last time I played EUIV the entire world was on the same level in institutions around 1700s and onwards
Yeah. You can't make institutions give Europe an auto-win for the entire timeline. Either do what we have now, or make it historical, so no real difference until ~1700. If you do the latter, casual players won't be able to get their fix from mindless colonization and tech-boosted, clumsy conquest in Asia and Africa, so we have the former instead.
>make it historical, so no real difference until ~1700
Yeah, it's not like Portuguese became a sole power on the Indian Ocean just after they barely managed to arrive there and could be dethroned only by the Dutch. Oh and it's not like China got fricked over by trade and missionaries as early as 17th century. And it's not like African slave kingdoms were built solely on trade with Europeans. Dumb frick.
>Yeah, it's not like Portuguese became a sole power on the Indian Ocean just after they barely managed to arrive there and could be dethroned only by the Dutch.
They were solely a naval power, and unseating them means prioritizing naval dominance, not only in your own coastline, but of the coastline of every country between Cape Verde and Micronesia.
Only the Dutch ever had a reason to target them like this.
>Oh and it's not like China got fricked over by trade and missionaries as early as 17th century.
They didn't. They were fricked up by their tax policies, multiple natural disasters, the massive expense of the Great Wall, and most importantly, their low regard for the military class, resulting in a rebellion by powerful armed forces in the Northwest, and later, their conquest by vengeful Manchus, who were originally invited in to crush rebels, but took over for themselves.
The Yongle emperor's decision to move the capital from Nanjing to Beijing, and his other mistakes, were the true undoing of Ming.
>And it's not like African slave kingdoms were built solely on trade with Europeans.
Most weren't. Dahomey was the exception to the rule, since it was fully dependent on the slave trade to function as a state. Benin and the other states of modern-day West Africa explicitly attempted to limit it, but the introduction of Maldivian cowries caused massive inflation in West/Central Africa, and the governments couldn't bring it in check via taxation, so in order to regulate it, they had to intercept the trade by meeting the demand on their own. This is also why so many more slaves were imported from West/Central Africa than East Africa. In East Africa, there wasn't the underlying threat of hyperinflation to coerce the monarchs of the day. Also, in the kingdom of Kongo, a war was declared against the Kongolese government because they failed to meet the demand for slaves. It should be obvious they weren't just looking for people who'd buy bodies.
>Dumb frick.
no u
nice post anon, i enjoyed reading that
Glad to hear it.
Horrible post anon, I hated reading it.
>They were solely a naval power, and unseating them means prioritizing naval dominance, not only in your own coastline, but of the coastline of every country between Cape Verde and Micronesia.
Which Indian and Indonesian states couldn't hope to do because their shipbuilding wasn't good enough compared to European. Thanks for agreeing wit hmy point.
>Only the Dutch ever had a reason to target them like this.
The spice trade was incredibly profitable even before first Euros came.
>They didn't. They were fricked up by their tax policies, multiple natural disasters, the massive expense of the Great Wall, and most importantly, their low regard for the military class, resulting in a rebellion by powerful armed forces in the Northwest, and later, their conquest by vengeful Manchus, who were originally invited in to crush rebels, but took over for themselves.
Cool, you know your history but you fialed to address my point. All of that was also made worse by silver inflation, fresh from Spanish America.
>Benin and the other states of modern-day West Africa explicitly attempted to limit it, but the introduction of Maldivian cowries caused massive inflation in West/Central Africa, and the governments couldn't bring it in check via taxation, so in order to regulate it, they had to intercept the trade by meeting the demand on their own.
So, what you're saying is... that slave trade with Euros has saved African kingdoms from economic crisis? Once again, thanks for agreeing with me.
>Which Indian and Indonesian states couldn't hope to do because their shipbuilding wasn't good enough compared to European.
No, it's because scouring all across the Indian Ocean in search of Portuguese holdouts requires political will only a few minor states ever had. Most would just be indifferent to the Portuguese. Sometimes, they struck deals with them instead and allied with them for the trade benefits, as in the case of Portuguese Malacca and certain mainland SEA states. If they're being a nuisance, they may occasionally be purged or embargoed by locals.
>The spice trade was incredibly profitable even before first Euros came.
And the monopoly only applied to European markets. If your ships aren't headed directly to Europe, it's not your business how much Portuguese merchants make from exploiting the price revolution there. What does matter is whether or not they're spending silver in your market. If they have a local outpost, they are.
>Cool, you know your history but you fialed to address my point. All of that was also made worse by silver inflation, fresh from Spanish America.
Which isn't a tech or institution matter, just a compounding factor. Enjoy your estate influence modifier.
>So, what you're saying is... that slave trade with Euros has saved African kingdoms from economic crisis?
No, it caused the economic crisis, then made it worse since they were literally draining the states of subjects and forcing them to declare countless wars to remain afloat. The governments just took over the trade directly because the alternative is a series of revolts and foreign invasions in your territory (neighbors), and it's the only way to negotiate limits with the traders.
>thanks for agreeing with me.
Graceless and wrong. Just bow out.
>scouring all across the Indian Ocean in search of Portuguese holdouts requires political will only a few minor states ever had.
They toally could, they just didn't want to!
>Sometimes, they struck deals with them instead and allied with them for the trade benefits
That's what being a dominant power entails.
>If your ships aren't headed directly to Europe, it's not your business how much Portuguese merchants make from exploiting the price revolution there.
If Indonesians or Indians had good enough ships, they would be headed directly to Europe and they would want to exploit the price revolution.
>Which isn't a tech or institution matter
It is, because at the time when first banks and stock exchanges were sprouting across Europe, Chinks had no financial instruments to stop it.
>No, it caused the economic crisis, then made it worse since they were literally draining the states of subjects and forcing them to declare countless wars to remain afloat. The governments just took over the trade directly because the alternative is a series of revolts and foreign invasions in your territory (neighbors), and it's the only way to negotiate limits with the traders.
So in other words European presence has transformed African kingdoms into ones that had to rely on trade with Euros in order to survive. Or, dare I say... African slave kingdoms were built solely on trade with Europeans. Look I get it. You want to win an argument on the internet. But you can't just write what agrees with what I said and try to pass it off as a counterargument.
>They toally could, they just didn't want to!
It's physically possible, but also prohibitively expensive and it doesn't serve a purpose. Portuguese derived much of their income from sailing to and from India to begin with. You wouldn't need to attack all of their holdouts to beat them either. Just make Venetians more competitive by securing the Mamluk Sultanate against Ottoman aggression.
>That's what being a dominant power entails.
Anon, this is embarrassing. The Portuguese weren't a "Dominant power" when they landed in Malacca. They were only able to secure their position via an alliance with the nearby states, who wanted power there to be broken up to begin with, and who were able to benefit from the influxes of silver, since the Portuguese monopoly on trade with Europe meant they indirectly had all of Europe's purchasing power behind their transactions, leading to gross overspending.
>If Indonesians or Indians had good enough ships, they would be headed directly to Europe and they would want to exploit the price revolution.
No, they'd be sending ships and petitions to the Ottoman Sultans, demanding they lower trade barriers and let the natural advantage of the Silk Road weigh in instead of trying to choke out Europe.
>It is, because at the time when first banks and stock exchanges were sprouting across Europe, Chinks had no financial instruments to stop it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China#Early_Chinese_banks
Read up.
>So in other words European presence has transformed African kingdoms into ones that had to rely on trade with Euros in order to survive.
Still no. They just had to gain control over an existing trade, which was easy enough. The presence of Maldivian currency is what destabilized them, and that still has nothing to do with tech or institutions.
You lost with the first post, and each response of yours has been intentional misunderstanding to pretend you had a point. Please stop.
>but also prohibitively expensive and it doesn't serve a purpose.
The purpose is getting mad $$$ from spice trade that Portuguese were making.
>Portuguese derived much of their income from sailing to and from India to begin with.
Yes, and? If South Asians had ships to match it would be their trade fleets, not Portuguese, bringing spices to Europe and you'd have buddhist pagodas built in Bordeaux and Hamburg, not christian cathedrals built in Goa and Macau.
>The Portuguese weren't a "Dominant power" when they landed in Malacca.
Since Wikipedia is apparently a good enough source for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Malacca_(1511)
And since it isn't a good enough source for me:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41105726
>They were only able to secure their position via an alliance with the nearby states, who wanted power there to be broken up to begin with
That's what a dominant power is. US is "only" able to secure its position in South America by exploiting rivalries between local states. The British were "only" able to secure their presence in India by exploiting rivalries between the princes.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China#Early_Chinese_banks
>Read up.
As you wish:
>Under the Ming dynasty in the 1440s, the confidence in fiat money was so undermined that China abandoned the Da-Ming Baochao paper money around 1445. The latter Ming and Qing dynasties both regressed to commodity money in response. The single whip tax reform by Grand Secretary Zhang Juzheng's in 1581 had mandated the payment of taxes to be made in bulk silver only, this reform had re-energised the exchange shop business.[2]
1/2
>The purpose is getting mad $$$ from spice trade that Portuguese were making.
They were already at the center of the spice trade.
>Yes, and? If South Asians had ships to match it would be their trade fleets, not Portuguese, bringing spices to Europe and you'd have buddhist pagodas built in Bordeaux and Hamburg
Wrong. They can count on others to come and move their goods across the ocean for them, since they're not suffering from any particular lack. They just need to control the production of spices. It's why Britain, despite being the most active partner in its trade with China, felt threatened enough by said trade to initiate the Opium Wars.
>Since Wikipedia is apparently a good enough source for you:
Look at the numbers in brackets. Those are the sources.
>That's what a dominant power is.
No, that's a dependent. They rely on other local powers to even remain present.
>US is "only" able to secure its position in South America by exploiting rivalries between local states.
No, it uses rebellions within states for that.
>The British were "only" able to secure their presence in India by exploiting rivalries between the princes.
No, they directly made a puppet out of the monarch over the richest portion of the subcontinent, then hired mercenaries to consolidate nearby areas during a power vacuum.
Neither of those cases are similar.
>Under the Ming dynasty in the 1440s, the confidence in fiat money was so undermined that China abandoned the Da-Ming Baochao paper money around 1445.
So you see this isn't a tech matter of lack of institutional development, but an avoidable lapse in the market due to poor policy, and associated regression.
Dishonest scum.
Pic related
(cont.)
>Two major types of early Chinese banking institutions are piaohao and qianzhuang. The first nationwide private financial system, so-called "draft banks" or piaohao was created by the Shanxi merchants during the Qing dynasty. [3] Smaller scale local banking institutions called qianzhuang, more often cooperated than competed with Piaohao in China's financial market.
The article fails to mention when did those institutions develop. Fortunately the "Shanxi merchants" one reads:
>Origin of Shanxi Banks
>There is still no consensus on the details of origin of Shanxi Banks. Most scholars believe that the Shanxi banks are a native innovation from China,[3] while some western scholars (initially proposed by Randall Morck) hypothesize a potential influence from Russia or Britain.[4]
>Rishengchang, the first draft bank or piaohao (票號), originated from Xiyuecheng Dye Company Pingyao in central Shanxi.[5] Rishengchang was estimated to be founded during the Qing Dynasty in 1823. However, the exact founding year remains controversial, some scholars argue it was found in 1797 or 1824.[6]
Eh? Anon, don't tell me you just pulled up a Wikipedia article and didn't even bother to check if it agrees with you? That's just embarassing.
>Still no. They just had to gain control over an existing trade, which was easy enough.
That doesn't in any way contradict my statement.
>The presence of Maldivian currency is what destabilized them, and that still has nothing to do with tech or institutions.
As we just established earlier in case of China having financial instruments to control inflation has everything to do with both tech and institutions.
>You lost with the first post, and each response of yours has been intentional misunderstanding to pretend you had a point.
No. you just fundemantally misunderstand what terms such as "dominant power" or "technological advantage" mean.
>Please stop.
No. This is fun.
(cont.)
>The article fails to mention when did those institutions develop.
Irrelevant. They weren't the first. They're just convenient because they're named.
>Eh? Anon, don't tell me you just pulled up a Wikipedia article and didn't even bother to check if it agrees with you?
Try looking at the whole thing next time.
>That's just embarassing.
Why are you acting like an anime character?
>That doesn't in any way contradict my statement.
See the other part of the sentence.
>As we just established earlier in case of China having financial instruments to control inflation has everything to do with both tech and institutions.
You imagined your own victory, poor fool. In this case, an administrative presence in ports and along rivers was sufficient.
>No. you just fundemantally misunderstand what terms such as "dominant power" or "technological advantage" mean.
Please give a definition for each consistent with your arguments. "Dominant power" means having control of a trading town, and depending on the goodwill of neighboring states to remain? "Technological advantage" means being centuries late to discover a method? Or is it literally just finding a massive source of a region's currency?
>No. This is fun.
You're just undermining yourself with each argument. Why don't you at least try being right? Are you lonely or something?
>Wrong. They can count on others to come and move their goods across the ocean for them,
Everyone wants to be the middleman. All profits that Portuguese were making on spice trade could be derived by somebody else. Are you daft or simply skitting around the issue?
>since they're not suffering from any particular lack.
Just to give an example, the Vijyanagaras sure would love to make do with extra cash when their power was declining in the latter half of 16th century.
>They rely on other local powers to even remain present.
The Portuguese conquered the three most important ports on the Indian Ocean by 1515. They've fricking destroyed Moloccan Sultanate. You can't pretend otherwise.
>Look at the numbers in brackets. Those are the sources.
Funny. I have checked the source that I hoped would mention banking under Song dynasty, but it has only mentioned earliest use of paper money. This is why I don't like Wikipedia.
>So you see this isn't a tech matter of lack of institutional development, but an avoidable lapse in the market due to poor policy, and associated regression.
My dude. The Romans have invented the institution of fair courts with defendants defense, presumption of innocence and all that noise, but it wouldn't be reintroduced to Europe until the Inquisition did so partially in 16th century. You can't pretend Europe had fair courts in the middle ages just because Romans used to one day. Similiarly, Chinks had good and well developed shipbuilding which allowed them to reach Africa under Zheng He. But since they've burned it all in 16th century and Chinese navy wasn't rebuilt until the 20th, you can't pretend Chinese shipbuilding was advanced when Brits literally blew their junks out of the water during Opium Wars
>You imagined your own victory, poor fool.
Somehow, when I mentioned Chinese banking being worse than European and this having disastrous effects, you didn't try to argue that it's not an institutional issue. Suddenly, when you can't try to defend Africans on it, it isn't. And I'm the dishonest one here?
>In this case, an administrative presence in ports and along rivers was sufficient.
I see. So your argument is that African slave trade was actually detrimental to them and they tried to limit it by taking part in it, and they succeeded so it actually never happened. And all of that was due to inflation which was caused by trade with Maldives but not by Euros who were the only ones directly trading with both Africa and India and also didn't happen because African port administration was sufficient. Got it. Gotta tell African Americans that they don't exist.
>"Dominant power" means having control of a trading town, and depending on the goodwill of neighboring states to remain?
"Dominant power" means being biggest power in the area by a large margin. For instance, Indian and Indonesian states having to contend with unquestioned Portuguese dominance of the Indian Ocean makes the Portuguese a dominant power. They don't have to control every port in the Indian Ocean (like Aden or Calicut) to be one.
>"Technological advantage" means being centuries late to discover a method? Or is it literally just finding a massive source of a region's currency?
"Technological adavantage" means having a well developed infrastructure (i.e. gunsmiths, bankers, officers) that allows a nation superior capabilites (such as having better guns, ships, tactics) or control (such as prevent smugling, tax certain goods, embargo, partially control inflation) with little additional costs.
>You're just undermining yourself with each argument. Why don't you at least try being right? Are you lonely or something?
If you don't want your moronic takes to be scrutinized, then don't share them.
(cont.)
>Somehow, when I mentioned Chinese banking being worse than European and this having disastrous effects, you didn't try to argue that it's not an institutional issue.
No, because I didn't need to. The more important and informative thing is establishing the truth about the development of banking practices.
>Suddenly, when you can't try to defend Africans on it, it isn't.
An argument from silence doesn't make a contradiction.
>I see. So your argument is that African slave trade was actually detrimental to them and they tried to limit it by taking part in it, and they succeeded so it actually never happened
Scratch "so it actually never happened".
>And all of that was due to inflation which was caused by trade with Maldives but not by Euros
Didn't say that either. I said Maldivian inflation isn't a matter related to EU4's tech or institutions. Again, enjoy your influence modifier.
>"Dominant power" means being biggest power in the area by a large margin.
So, Portugal decidedly wasn't that in any of its colonies.
>"Technological adavantage" means having a well developed infrastructure (i.e. gunsmiths, bankers, officers) that allows a nation superior capabilites (such as having better guns, ships, tactics) or control (such as prevent smugling, tax certain goods, embargo, partially control inflation) with little additional costs.
You've rolled organizational and natural advantages into your definition. Additionally, it doesn't cover the major immediate factors I outlined earlier.
>If you don't want your moronic takes to be scrutinized, then don't share them.
If you're going to do something, do it correctly. You don't have any meaningful insights, so all you can do is twist words around or fabricate arguments from the lack of an argument. This conversation is done. Enjoy your last (You).
>Everyone wants to be the middleman.
That's false. Also, it assumes monarchs have some nationalistic parental relationship with local merchants. They often don't.
>All profits that Portuguese were making on spice trade could be derived by somebody else.
And you can benefit from the trade just by being the market the Portuguese spend stupid amounts for spice on. Even moreso since, as the monarch, you can tax all trade within your borders.
>Are you daft or simply skitting around the issue?
You have no understanding of pre-modern trade.
>Just to give an example, the Vijyanagaras sure would love to make do with extra cash when their power was declining in the latter half of 16th century.
It would've been an insignificant amount, and it wouldn't have come close to solving their problems.
>The Portuguese conquered the three most important ports on the Indian Ocean by 1515.
Important for whom?
>They've fricking destroyed Moloccan Sultanate
Funny thing: After the Portuguese took the city of Malacca, Asian traders largely avoided the city, and it declined. Instead, Johor, founded by the descendants of Malacca's rulers, took a large part of the trade back. All the Portuguese did was fracture the sultanate.
>Funny. I have checked the source that I hoped would mention banking under Song dynasty, but it has only mentioned earliest use of paper money.
Anon, paper money is an extension of a banking practice. Fiat currency exists to lubricate the market and mask inflation. That IS the evidence you're looking for.
>But since they've burned it all in 16th century and Chinese navy wasn't rebuilt until the 20th, you can't pretend Chinese shipbuilding was advanced when Brits literally blew their junks out of the water during Opium Wars
Well, since I know how to distinguish between Qing and Ming, and since institutions and tech are linear in EU4, your argument is moot.
>That's false. Also, it assumes monarchs have some nationalistic parental relationship with local merchants. They often don't.
Yet another way in which Western European states were more developed than Asian ones.
>And you can benefit from the trade just by being the market the Portuguese spend stupid amounts for spice on. Even moreso since, as the monarch, you can tax all trade within your borders.
Skitting around the issue then.Benefit from taxes < Benefit from taxes + mad benefit from trade that Portuguese had
>It would've been an insignificant amount
Insignificant amount > 0
>Important for whom?
For traders, of course.
>Funny thing: After the Portuguese took the city of Malacca, Asian traders largely avoided the city, and it declined.
Oh good, I see we're going from "Portuguese could only be there out of natives' goodwill", to "They could only destroy". I accept this concession.
>Well, since I know how to distinguish between Qing and Ming, and since institutions and tech are linear in EU4, your argument is moot.
Since I know that it was Ming who burned the ships, my argument stands firm.
>Scratch "so it actually never happened".
African slave trade was actually detrimental to them and they tried to limit it by taking part in it, and they succeeded but it happened anyway. Makes about as much sense.
>isn't a matter related to EU4's tech or institutions
Diplomatic tech 5 - Basic Financial Instruments:
"Overseas trade is very risky but also highly profitable. The development of financial instruments like letters of credit will help reduce the risk, increasing our profits."
>You've rolled organizational and natural advantages into your definition.
Organizational - yes, abobawdely, why wouldn't I?
>This conversation is done. Enjoy your last (You).
Bye.
holy you btfo the chink, good job, just be careful the secret police doesnt get to you
now if you excuse me, its time to anhiliate chinks in the best paradox game, victoria 2. better start working cheng, or else there will be no more dogmeat for you!
great job btfoing the chink. with my newfound motivation; im starting a crimeamod campaign to enslave and turn chinks into industrial cogs right NOW
"Just bow out" look whos talking, chang
The Portugese could only become an important player in the Indian ocean because the region was divided and because they had many local allies they could play out against other locals, in fact the way the Dutch broke their "dominance" was mainly through stealing portugese allies (and allying everyone that had been displeased by the "Portuguese" status quo) on land european dominance would come much later.
>China got fricked over
Again because of internal support for those european elements. Without locals the euros couldn't shit: japan eventually kicked the portuguese/spanish out and china had little trouble holding the dutch at bay. In these cases it was actually the asians playing different europeans against each other.
The tech gap being really small is realistic until the late 17th century.
"NOOOOO US CHENGS COULD HAVE DEFEATED THE WHITE DOGS IF ONRY THOSE DAMN TRAITORS WOURDNT HAVE TRADED WITH THEM!!!!!"
Buck broken.
Which is the exact opposite of how they should work. Except in naval tech, Europe should be more or less level with the developed states of Asia/the Middle East until the late 1600s when they stagnate and Europe pulls away.
Basically, yeah.
>sell people only the game
>LOL WORST GAME EVER NO DLC DEAD GAME
Kek what the frick is wrong with paradrones?
it hasn't been like that for 10 years now. time to stop whining, no one is confused as to the model anymore. the child in the illustration would not have been born the last time buying a paradox basegame was enough
Is there a GS where all combat is handled by competent AI? I want something where the only player input is to list vague campaign goals, and a bunch of generals will either do it for you, call you an idiot but do it anyway and get your entire army routed, or just refuse and start a coup to depose you.
>a bunch of generals will either do it for you, call you an idiot but do it anyway and get your entire army routed, or just refuse and start a coup to depose you
not a strategy but Suzerain has all of these
Scourge of War. An autonomous AI that is actually fun. not this half-assed gabarge in victoria 3
I'll place my knapsack on my back
My rifle on my shoulder
I'll march away to the firing line
And kill that Yankee soldier
And kill that Yankee soldier
I'll march away to the firing line
And kill that Yankee soldier
I'll bid farewell to my wife and child
Farewell to my aged mother
And go and join in the bloody strife
Till this cruel war is over
Till this cruel war is over
I'll go and join in the bloody strife
Till this cruel war is over
If I am shot on the battlefield
And I should not recover
Oh, who will protect my wife and child
And care for my aged mother
And care for my aged mother
Oh, who will protect my wife and child
And care for my aged mother
And if our Southern cause is lost
And Southern rights denied us
We'll be ground beneath the tyrant's heel
For our demands of justice
For our demands of justice
We'll be ground beneath the tyrant's heel
For our demands of justice
Before the South shall bow her head
Before the tyrants harm us
I'll give my all to the Southern cause
And die in the Southern army
And die in the Southern army
I'll give my all to the Southern cause
And die in the Southern army
If I must die for my home and land
My spirit will not falter
Oh, here's my heart and here's my hand
Upon my country's altar
Upon my country's altar
Oh, here's my heart and here's my hand
Upon my country's altar
Then Heaven be with us in the strife
Be with the Southern soldier
We'll drive the mercenary horde
Beyond our Southern border
Beyond our Southern border
We'll drive the mercenary horde
Beyond our Southern border
So, I'll place my knapsack on my back
My rifle on my shoulder
I'll march away to the firing line
And kill that Yankee soldier
And kill that Yankee soldier
I'll march away to the firing line
And kill that Yankee soldier
southerners should kill themselves specifically confederate ilk.
moronic assfricks want to be able to win every game by out microing the brain dead AI.
Sorry morons! You will not be able to lure the AI into attacking you in the mountains in this game! LMFAO!
(You)
oops meant for this
>look forward to this game to play as the Qing
>realise all unique Qing/Asian content will 100% be added in a DLC
I hate these hacks so much
>Jewel of the East DLC
>Bandeirantes DLC
>Rising Eagle DLC
>Blood and Steel DLC
>Heirs of Ali DLC
>Ivory Kings DLC
>Manifestos DLC
>Art and War DLC
>Robber Barons DLC
>Children of Polesia DLC
>Wisdom of the Ulema DLC
>Rolling Rubles DLC
>Men and Kings DLC
>Heirs of Rome DLC
>Shadow of Napoleon DLC
>Unit Packs
Small family company, please understand.
People might complain about it but I universally quit every Victoria 3 campaign once it got to the world war period. I just cannot be assed to micro. HOI2-HOI3 seem fun and they're all micro but I'm to small brained to play them rn but they're different because they make that micro actually interesting and it's not trying to be anything else besides a wargame
the macro is somehow just as bad in 3 despite them dumbing down the war system
I meant that I universally quit every Victoria 2 game btw lol
No problem, V3 mirco is just as bad even at peacetime. Now you don't have to wait for war to quit :^)
What you sniveling little anal cumdumps dont understand is that Vic3 is NOT being designed for you. Despite its name it is not the successor to Vic2. It is a totally different game being designed for a completely different market.
I could tell you more but you contrarian asswipes are too conceited to listen to sense.
>I could tell you more
I'm interested. Then tell me more.
Okay, you sound trustworthy and are possibly not a transsexual. But I will only tell you if you promise not to tell everyone, this sort of information could get both of us cancelled and permanently banned from facebook. Being friends with Elon Musk won't even help.
So, have you ever observed normies in da wildee? You have played Runescape right? Da wildee? As the Chads called it back in the day when pvp actually meant having testicles. Anyway, normies... That's right, they are all on their fricking phones. Mobile gaming is huge and only getting huger. Pdx is positioning itself to enter the mobile market, leaving you pirating deadbeats and you forever whining malcontents behind. FOREVER!
Vic3 is an intermediate step in porting to mobile.
Pdx made an interesting discovery when they introduced grand strategy games. The real paying customers are not the grognards and wargamers. No. The real gold is in the morons and casuals. In the dark and dank bunkers of Pdx HQ the call went out...
"THAR BE GOLD IN THEM MORONS!"
So we got two things. moronic role playing, dumbing down, and DLC. As evidenced by the likes of ck, hoi4 and eu4. Actually that is three things. But I did that intentionally to throw off the CIA agents who are probably onto us by now. Frick.
Now mark my words well, young whippersnapper, the moment Vic3 comes it will be immediately followed up by the mobile version. The PC version will exist purely to sort the bugs out and gauge reaction. After you viscous but stupid little bastards have paid for the privilege of helping Pdx iron out the bugs and refine game mechanics they will be set to unleash Vic 3 onto the mobile market.
The three buttons you see? Now it all makes sense. But there is more. Much more. Stuff that will make your spine crawl and go off frantically searching for comfort food in the kitchen. I will tell you if you can confirm that you are still a free man, and not holed away in some wienerroach infested cell in South America by now.
Sounds entirely legit.
this is basically also what happened with ck3
devs completely out of touch what players want, instead they cater to reddit memes
don't worry guys, they will rework it in 3rd dlc
Europe, 1936.
ugh, VGH, what could have been
>spergs arguing about trade and racism
>/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy
Each member being a high-IQ strategist, the patrons of /vst/ are known for their intellectual debates.The bickering of other boards are beneath us, what with their "on topic" shenanigans. In /vst/ we take pride in discussing the true mechanisms of the world, for understanding those brings us closer to achieving true enightenment and comprehension of strategy.
To make the new hands off war system work they would have to design it with the philosophy of it being a simulation that the player has to nudge with high level commands into getting the best outcome, similar to how the economic gameplay of 2 works. Unfortunately they've decided against that philosophy altogether so they didn't build any real simulation into it, and and didn't give the player much input either.
They can't even make the spearhead command work in hoi4
I've not played GoY4, but surely if the Vicky 3 team actually doubled down on making the warfare system more abstract/high level so that it didn't need to be so strictly tied to the map itself they'd have an easier time making commands like that work.
Of course I'm fooling myself and we all know it would just be stacking modifiers to the attack and defend values.
I sincerely don't understand any of this. Paradox has done this with one of their most complex strategy games they've ever made and bootlickers are eating their shit like some new breakthrough in gaming has been achieved. The fact that they defend it so hard just proves how far the company has fallen.
Honestly making warfare more abstract in general in Vic/EU would allow for more historical and interesting stuff. I've always hated how much of warfare is raw numbers in PDX games. Vic2 is one of the better ones but even then, Euro army sizes in Asia are exaggerated (there were 13,000 Brits and 7,000 French in total in the Second Opium War, for example.)
>Honestly making warfare more abstract in general in Vic/EU would allow for more historical and interesting stuff
I agree. They could've took the opportunity to build something genuinely good instead of Fricking Nothing to be built upon later with a handful of disjointed and half assed DLCs. But alas
>Euro army sizes in Asia are exaggerated
Asian army sizes in Asia are exaggerated. By 19th century half of the million-strong Qing army were ghost soldiers that existed as a salary scam, and the other half was mostly people who refused to leave their home provinces even if their generals agreed to send them which they usually didn't. Literally everyone but the Hui weren't guaranteed to show up to a fight, even the original Manchu banners.
Imagine trying to explain this with EU4 logic.
>Imagine trying to explain this with EU4 logic.
Corrupt Military: +100% army maintenance and reinforcement cost, -33% land speed, -25% discipline, each regiment is know tied to a specific region and takes a monthly -0.25 penalty to maximum morale, down to -50% of the total value when outside it, which is restored at a +0.25 per month when within the region.
Honestly only the last part would be tricky to implement.
10 years, they had 10 YEARS to put hoi3 levels of combat polish into their game. That's all it needed, aside from a few bugs just that, and it's fricking worse. What a joke.
I weep for what was lost.
>Westerners only succeeded by taking advantage of the divided East
Oh yes, as we all know, Europe was known for its great political unity. The great Empire of Portugal never had to deal with rivals by its home turf, unlike poor exploited China.
More like the opposite, if they were unified europeans probably wouldn't get good at killing people as quickly as they did
What is the point of stand-by-model? What is the difference between stand-by and defense?
Defending involves shooting back, standing by is when you do nothing as the enemy army peacefully protests through your country
Wrong. The "Stand By" order means you let women and homosexuals seize control of your country while third world immigrants pour in and are given everything your ancestors fought and died for.
I was going to make an intelligent and reasonable comment but then I remembered I am on /vst/, a board mostly inhabited by children, morons, trolls, contrarians, and poorly educated pigfrickers. So I stopped and thus saved myself the effort.
As a result I have the pleasure of not coming back to this thread only to find some mental midget has made a ludicrously stupid reply to my well thought out and on topic comment.
Nor am I going to find some dumbfrick esl idiot has written some incomprehensible gibberish in reply to my eloquent post. Nor will some fricked up schizo have made a "lmao tldr moron!" comment directed at my reasonable commentary on Vic3.
No, they will only find this post. Which doesn't discuss Vic3 at all.
I am so pleased with this result that I am going to give myself a treat for having saved myself the effort. I am going to grill a cheese and onion sandwich and get a long glass of cold chocolate milk. A far more better use of my resources as I am sure the very few intelligent readers of this post will agree.
>chocoate milk
Based. Do you prefer using chocoate syrup or are you a premade gay?
>grill a cheese and onion sandwich
Are you talking about making a grilled cheese sandwich? Sounds good anon.
>chocoate syrup or are you a premade gay?
Depends on what's to hand. Sometimes the b***h buys the wrong stuff. Doesn't matter how much I slap her around, she doesn't seem to learn.
a cheese and onion sandwich
>Are you talking about making a grilled cheese sandwich?
No. I am talking about a fricking grilled cotton and dog poo sandwich. You dense c**t.
You will never have my intellectual powers, nor my education. Your literary "competence" will consist of throwing out tired old one line memes at best. You are inferior. Furthermore you know this and it makes you mad.
>muh intellectual pow-ACK!
Misc Potted.
Very good. I can see you are an educated person of discerning tastes. Unlike most of the filthy riff raff that foul this place with their loutish antics. Come, let us have a snifter of Brandy and discuss the finer cinematic points of Citizen Kane while throwing the odd passing remark upon Victoria 3, just to keep the plebs happy.
>Depends on what's to hand. Sometimes the b***h buys the wrong stuff.
That's a shame anon. I can understand the frustration of having the wrong milk or brand and then the flavor being fricked up. Hopefully your mother gets better at remembering though.
>No. I am talking about a fricking grilled cotton and dog poo sandwich. You dense c**t.
You'll have to forgive me, anon. Your wording was somewhat vague in the initial post, and colloquially most people simply use the term "grilled cheese." As such I was unsure of whether you were indeed talking about grilled cheese and your second language is English (and thus were unaware of the proper phrasing to use) or whether the meal in question was something similar but ultimately distinct from a grilled cheese sandwich.
Ikr. I suppose I could go and buy the right chocolate milk myself, but Jesus, that means having to go outside. But its okay, over the years I have built up a tolerance to lower quality shit. Its a hardship but I just grin and bear it like a Man. I still give the b***h a slap though, otherwise she would get uppity.
I have decided to forgive your trespass against all decency regarding the grilled sandwich. These things are very important to me, especially since they form a major part of my nutritional intake. I really shouldn't have flown off the handle against you. I should make amends. As a result I am going to donate $5 from my mother's credit card to some fricking charity that helps out in shitty third countries. After the administrators take 95% of my donation for their grossly inflated salaries, perhaps a few cents will trickle down to your village. Who knows? Perhaps my contribution will assist in building your next wienerroach infested mud hut.
I appreciate the offer dear anon, but I'm afraid I have no need of your money. In the civilized world where English is primarily spoken (I'm assuming you are not from here based on your writings, and I guess that you are from these "third countries," whatever that means) we do not have mud huts or wienerroach infestation as you believe to be common, and five dollars is actually quite a small sum of money. I am sorry to hear that you live in such poor conditions and think that it is the norm, but worry not my dear friend, for if you are willing I may be able to adopt you as a member of my household and pay for your flight where I could perhaps educate you about the English-speaking world. Would this not be a most amenable offer to you?
Unfortunately I must refuse your kind offer, my dear friend. Much as it pains me to tell you, I must inform you that you are suffering from delusions. For you see, and please take this in the spirit of a friend merely informing you of reality, I am quite the civilized gentlemen while you are in fact a poor ignorant guttersnipe who scrounges for food scraps amidst the tepid filth of your appalling country's streets. But fear not for your preservation, for at this moment the happy tax payers of enlightened nations, such as mine, have undertaken to eradicate the worse of the vile diseases which bring so much calamity upon your people. Leprosy. Ebola. Malaria. AIDS. Soon all these will be a thing of the past under the auspices of international Aid agencies. As you grow to be a nubile and active young man you will not fear the debilitating effects of HIV when attempting to lift yourself out of poverty. Fare well my friend.
...oh, and God bless.
I regret to inform you sir, but you appear to, once again, be projecting your unfortunate reality onto the entire world, believing your situation to be a common occurence. As you have refused my generous offer to educate you on the ways of the world, I suppose I could at least make do with informing you of your misconceptons. One such misconception you have is that food is a scarce resource in English-speaking nations. In the civilized part of the world, food is both plentiful and easy to aquire. In fact, English-speaking countries often have more issues with peasants becoming too fat, rather than starving. While I am sure that in your tribe it may be quite difficult to procure a sufficient amount of food to survive and that one may need to "[scrounge] for food scraps amidst the tepid filth" as you put it, in civilized nations it would actually take considerably more effort to starve than to become obese. With these clarifications I hope that you have become more informed about the English-speaking world. I believe that if you do ever choose to accept my offer, you would be able to adjust well since it seems that your English vocabulary is quite advanced, despite still struggling to fully understand the correct application or meaning of some of these words. Nevertheless, I eagerly await your next correspondence.
My dear fellow.
I was delighted to receive your correspondence the other day. My wife and I were sitting at the old mahogany dining table, enjoying high tea, when the servant brought us your tattered parchment tidings.
"Oh look!" said I "Our dear little chum from across the ocean has sent us another tale! How grand!"
"I must say he is a delightful chap, let's do hope he doesn't get eaten by a hippo or something ghastly like that" my wife wistfully replied.
"I dare say the poor blighter might be more at risk from the local witch doctor than from any wayward beast" I responded.
"I say, wouldn't it be just a lovely idea to invite him over here for a sojourn? He could sleep in the servants quarters and you could show him all sorts of wonderful things. Like knives and forks, books, and shoes!'
"Well, just so long as he doesn't go chucking spears around when visitors arrive. Remember the Wrights are coming next month to discuss setting up a new trading venture in the colonies. Wouldn't want them being impaled and eaten."
"No, I do suppose not" astutely observed my wife.
Anyway, she had to leave for her weekly fox hunt, and so I was left to peruse your cuneiforms by myself, monocle in place, cigar in hand.
Cordial regards.
Your friend.
My dear friend, I must admit I was utterly shocked when you told me that you still use pen and paper! To think that such prmitive tools are still used around the world, quite frankly, baffles me. I did not know until now just how precarious your situation has been, to only have one computer for use in your entire tribe! If I may be so bold as to ask, who then relays these messages from the internet to your hut? You claim it is a servant, although I cannot help but think you are once again falling into your delusions once again. Perhaps it is a nephew, or some other young lad to whom you pay in seashells? Further yet, I cannot help but be offput by your last message, in which you claim to describe a conversation which mentions colonies of all things! I could not truly believe that the non-English-speaking world was still so uncivilized until you opened my eyes to the reality that this world is yet filled with delusions and a lack of technology. Despite this, I still eagerly await your next correspondence.
autism speaks: the post
>a board mostly inhabited by children, morons, trolls, contrarians, and poorly educated pigfrickers.
Get out of the Paradox/TW threads.
>more better
Between microing every building and factory and microing every brigade/division only the braniacs at PDX could have decided the former is appropriate but the latter isn't. HoI3 let you delegate as much of your military to AI as you wanted to, Vicky 2 did the same for economy. But no let's have the worst of both worlds where Bismarck is personally responsible for building dirt roads in Kamerun but not anything to do with fighting at Sedan.
Why are paracuck devs are so inclined to remove any graphical representation of armies? I guess war didn't exist in the Victorian Era??
At this point, Victoria 3 isn't a sequel to Victoria 2. It's nothing like it. Should be called Bismarck 1 or something
Sorry chud, war is white supremacist.
bro imagine playing a 60€ rock paper scissors
I just formed Romania, how do I genocide the gypsies and israelites?
You can't anon. This is a progressive tolerance simulator. Now enact multiculturalism or suffer turmoil penalties forever.
Seriously? There is no way to get rid of them? Can I atleast bait them into mass rebellion to slaughter them or side with my people when a progrom happens like in Vicky 2?
is it possible in vicky 2 to do this sort of thing to reduce a population type?
Ya if you use suppress on a movement they are more likely to rebel
>Istanbul
If any of you want an idea of how this three button system works out then just play any paradox game that lets you place the AI in command of your armies. Do it. Load up a game and let the AI take command of your armies. Press unpause and then sit back and watch the most incredible harebrained arsefrickery unfold. That's what Vic3 will be like, only instead of watching your AI armies run around like headless chickens doing all sorts of stupid shit, it will all be abstracted, so you cant see the immense moronation involved.
it really is brilliant, wiz truly is a genius
instead of making good AI just shove it all in a black box so players won't be able to tell
So I am playing as Cuba and run out of workforce, how do import more slaves?
no idea. I'm playing a game as colombia and usually I follow my IRL morals with how I play solo but i want to make a totalitarian monarchy so I need to learn how to import more slaves as well
Declare intrest on some decentralized region in africa. But you have to be a minor power.
Thanks, slaverbro.
Superior people will play Vic3
Thanks for the reminder for me to filter this garbage game so it won't fill up the catalogue
Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now thats just what I am
And for this yankee nation
I do no give a damn
I'm glad I fought against her
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done
I hates the Yankee nation
And eveything they do
I hates the declaration
Of independence too
I hates the glorious union
'Tis dripping with our blood
I hates the striped banner
And fought it all I could
I rode with Robert E. Lee
For three years there about
Got wounded in four places
And I starved at Point Lookout
I caught the rheumatism
Campin' in the snow
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I'd like to kill some more
Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us
They died of southern fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got
I can't take up my musket
And fight 'em down no more
But I ain't a-goin' to love them
Now that is certain sure
And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am
I won't be reconstructed
And I do not give a damn
Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now that's just what I am
And for this Yankee nation
I do no give a damn
I'm glad I fought against her
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done...
>literally the only union song anyone has ever heard of is just a lame rewrite of a csa song
>what is marching through Georgia
garbage that no one ever listens to
Cope and Seethe
I accept your concession
What are you talking about?
You learn Battle Hymn of the Republic in grade school
lol sure you do
Is the concept of patriotism completely alien to Euroshitters and sudacas?
The last time they all got really patriotic like 100 million people died in two wars
How the frick do you get your Shogun 2 to look that good? Mine looks like melted play-doh. I've fought against you a few times too I think. And won.
I'll boot up the game and screenshot the settings after dinner.
And was it a FotS army or an S2 army? My FotS army setup is a total meme with me trying to force an almost all-melee force which gets shut down against people who know meta fots setups and can micro their cav
>How the frick do you get your Shogun 2 to look that good?
literally learned to sing it in like the 3rd grade
in fricking California no less
just take your L and go
everyone is anonymous here
your ego will survive
Well I never learned it in school
well im not from the sister-fricking, african infested, muggy, bug-filled, backwater nation called "the south"
>African infested
Who fought to free them, again?
>Implying their freedom is the problem
As if the education system is any better here in cali
>lame rewrite
t. butthurt dixieboo
But it is a lazy rewrite
I am really looking forward to Vic 3. We will have a new strategy game where winning isn't just beating the brain dead AI with micro. Its going to cause so many morons to have a complete mental breakdown because now they wont be able to jack off to their 'Me genius General!" power fantasies
That might cost Paradox a few customers, but they are the worse kind of customers Anyway having a truly meaningful new strategy game will attract a huge number of new players who were previously put off by the all the micro asshat antics
Now you just beat the braindead AI by clicking expand factory thousands of times.
Truly riveting. If you're terminally autistic and could enjoy watching paint dry.
You lie white dog! YOU LIE!
How the frick do you prevent the civil war from starting immediatly?
if it pops off right away in 1836 out of nowhere its clearly some kind of scripted event
the current build probably functions as a demo to catapult you right into trying shit out like combat and not a proper sandboxy thing for final release
Can't be worse than victoria 2 warfare
The problem OP and other subhumans have with 3 buttons is because they are used to luring the AI into attacking into mountains. They got away with this shit so often in the past that they cant imagine anything else. The new system in Vic 3 threatens their security, they know they will discover they are not military geniuses at all. This frightens them very much. So much so that they wet their beds at night.
LE MOUNTAIN CHEESE! LE CHEEESE! THIS JUSTIFIES GUTTING WARFARE!
Let's make every country a command economy in the era of lazy fair economics and free markets, and let's automate warfare in a time where politics fricked with the military and vice versa.
Frick me you're moronic.
>THIS JUSTIFIES GUTTING WARFARE!
There barely was warfare. You'd just look up the template online and then 9/10 times do reenforcing or throwing men at it untill you win. It is boring and you always know wether or not you will win beforehand.
>It is boring and you always know wether or not you will win beforehand
As opposed to substracting the magic military number of your enemy from yours before the war even starts?
>You'd just look up the template online
That's every game ever made, dipshit. People "looked up" chess openings back when your ancestors were still picking cotton.
Not any good game you absolute idiot. The whole point is that you should change your tactics and composition based on that which you are fighting which can also change. Have you ever played an actual strategy game?
>Have you ever played an actual strategy game?
Evidently you didn't, since you consider rock-paper-scissors to be the pinnacle of the genre.
Unfortunately, Victoria 3 is nowhere like that fantasy you've imagined. It's literally bigger number wins.
Literally both of you are making shit up I'm not saying you morons. I'm saying warfare in victoria 2 was totally shit and didn't even have the most basic elements of strategy in it. Victoria 3 is removing most of it untill they'll release an overpriced DLC.
>the backdown
BTW I'd love for you to list out the most basic elements of strategy for us, you imbecile
>You'd just look up the template online
Army composition is one of the many things they could've made more interesting as part of making warfare more hands off, instead they just replaced "online template armies" with "pick the highest thing you've unlocked"
I recommend you purchase plenty of spare bedsheets, you are going to need them. Also drink less before going to bed.
>Lazy fair
All of you are underage.
It's a /gsg/ meme. Surprised you didn't recognize it.
..and so the great bed wetting began.
Stop being passive aggressive. You're acting like a fricking woman.
Why so angry? Wet your bed again?
Do you have a piss fetish?
Look I understand it must be very upsetting for you to constantly wet yourself. But no matter how much you hate Victoria 3's superior design and how it will expose your inadequacy, you simply not be able to stop wetting your bed. Try using diapers.
Honestly ive always believed that vic2 was kinda bad in many apsects but its mainly due to being so old and there being only 2 small dlc but its fair to say vic 3 doesnt have this excuse and its gonna be bad as paradox have a monopoly on these games thus they can make everything shallow
Why does paradox allways make the natural borders of france impossible by making provinces cross-river?
Please if any of the devs that worked on designing the game's mechanics is lurking the thread and reading this, please have a nice day, ideally also kill any other of the designers you know. Considering you are most likely transsexual and that this outcome was highly probable anyway you might aswell speed it up and reduce the risk of you making shitty games in the future. Thank you, perhaps in taking my advice you may find a tiny glimmer of redemption.
Grand strategy games are sitting on the verge of a radical new breakthrough with Victoria 3. Actual GRAND STRATEGY. But it more than just an innovative approach, it will also rid the gaming community of those stupid little c**ts who think outsmarting AI armies is peak performance. Lets get one fact straight. Luring, outflanking, trapping and encircling AI armies is NOT smart. Its like outsmarting an insect. Yet the gaming community is full of highly vocal buttholes who think it is smart. They think they are the living reincarnation of Alexander the Great, or whatever historical military leader features in their gay masturbation fantasy. Victoria 3 will get rid of all that bullshit and all those stupid little buttholes, making for a far better community and far better gaming experience.
Cool pasta m8 but there's genuinely no strategy to Vicky 3
There will be grand strategy. Which is the level above where you place your units on the map. Not operational or campaign strategy. Not battlefield strategy. Not tactics. It will the the strategy of deciding who you go to war with and when and how best to prosecute that war according to the political and economic constraints you are now operating under because of your own past decisions.
It will be great.
>political and economic constraints
Newspeak for whatever meme laws you have implemented like gay syndicalism and your number of barracks buildings
I'm not even joking t. leaked beta player
So what will the "strategy" part be in Victoria 3?
Obviously the major facets of any grand strategy. How one directs the economy, where one projects influence, what alliances one makes, how one responds to domestic issues, how much to invest in the military...plus all the sub order considerations such as upgrading infrastructure, setting tax rates, expanding trade, implementing social programs, investing in education and technical innovations. All the sort of stuff that determines how and where military conflicts will arise and how effectively you will be able to cope with them.
Look, it will be great. Have faith. Paradox won't let us down.
> directing the economy
> projecting influence
> choosing alliances
> how much to invest in the military
You do realise you can outwit the AI just as easily in all those things listed as you can by outsmarting the AI's army micro
Fricking Paradrones
>reducing AI's vulnerability to cheesy tactical exploits will not make it better!
This is your brain on moron pills.
>remove gameplay altogether
>now the AI is immune to exploits
Truly, you are the greatest genius of our time. Greater than Einstein.
Paradox isn't a fricking small family company anymore, they could literally hire people for the sole purpose of making a decent AI that can see through units defending on mountains with stacks behind them.
>I'M THE AI EXPERT!
Change your bed sheets, dearie. You wet them. Again.
homie.
Paradox AI in their other games can literally see through fog of war.
Try arguing honestly instead of just endless fricking character attacks because you lack an actual leg to stand on.
morons like you will never amount to anything. Meanwhile smart people get shit done. That's the difference. Now put on some diapers.
You seem a tad obsessed with people disagreeing with you being incontinent. Is this some kind of degenerate fetish you're projecting onto us?
Again, you lack any actual real arguments, only attacking us with "haha bedwetter diaper hurr durrrrr" schoolyard-tier insults, because Vicky 3 is a bomb waiting to drop, and you know it.
Its simple enough for even your pea brain to understand. Victoria 3 will be a superior game played by superior people. Inferior people like you have lost control over your bladder because you will no longer be able to cheese easy wins over the AI. This is the truth and you know it.
Instead I can get easy wins over the AI by building 20 barracks, using the best "production method" (lmao) and clicking the advance button
>plays alpha release
>click barracks!
>I be General Patton now!
This is your brain when your mother smokes the borax spliced crack the black pimp gives her. How is your dad anyway?
>alpha build
It was a beta you disingenuous frick.
I wonder how much the game will change between now and the end of the year since it's a 2022 release?
Answer the question. How is your dad? He given you any side hustle running some of the other bints? Or he did he decide to peddle your ass too? That is when he's not using it for his own pleasure.
My dad's fine. I'd rather not dox myself, but we're on very good terms!
Now you answer a question of mine: why do you insist on defending this game when it has the strategic depth of a puddle?
>we're on very good terms!
Understandable since you give him free blow jobs.
Stop being such a homosexual. I see you're just busy dodging the question.
>sucks off his own father
>calls someone a homosexual
The Irony. The post.
>projecting your own homosexual urges for your father onto others
>denial
The post.
How's them diapers coming along? Answer the question, b***h.
I don't wear diapers because I'm a functional adult human being, not some kind of incontinent moron or weird fetishist. Now you answer why you're defending this game when there's no fricking strategic depth to it.
They're probably done adding/changing the game since it's in beta-stage and busy fixing shit.
>wiz diapergay confirmed
It all makes sense now. I bet that that he is behind the stellaris piss planet mod as well.
>Stellapiss
Mios dios
Wiz is that you?
You took a massive shit Stellaris and you're gonna ruin Victoria 3
frick you ya swedish homosexual kys FRICK YOU
I unironically think someone at paradox posts here, sometimes I think someone is shit posting and then I get into a really long back and forth and realize they are actually mad.
>le remove all the best features and make the game boring as frick because Paradox can't program half decent AI
>oh and make loads of cringy troony mobile graphics to distract from how empty and shallow this game is
Paradrones are truly subhumans
As good as the bait was in the first post, that's a little too much effort in the followups so in case you really are that far gone I'll just say this: I don't think anyone disagrees that Vic2 warfare wasn't very good. The problem is that all the systems Vic3 add simply don't make up for the loss of Vic2's warfare. Hell, even Vic2's logistics system is more sophisticated than Vic3's, which woud have been the one thing I'd have expected Vic3 to improve on if they really did care about making warfare more of an economics game. But instead the entire thing simply boils down to clicking a barracks button 20 times, then clicking the "machine guns" button and now you tear through the enemy. Want better tech? Just click the university button 20 times and now your research is up by 200 points. Everything in the game is just clicking buttons to create new resources with little to no drawbacks/costs to spamming.
YOU LIE WHITE RUNNING DOG OF IMPERIAL AGGRESSION! YOU LIE! TAIWAN BELONG TO CHINA! CHINA NUMBER 1!
First DLC: "A Fourth button!"
>You can't larp as moltke or bismarck crushing the french at sedan in a grand maneuver
this game is shit
You sure you aren't you looking for more of a Ultimate General type of game?
But... Bismarck never crushed the French at Sedan
He set up the situation to allow the French to be crushed at Sedan i.e. the Ems Dispatch and trolling the French public etc.
I dunno how much he did to help the Prussian military pioneer shit like wedding military deployment to railroad schedules or the concept of a general staff...
Vicky is a Bismarck Simulator, or Disraeli / Metternich simulator. Or it ought to be.
You are wasting your time pointing out historical facts to these monkeys. Their vision is really very primitive. They just want to outsmart the AI on a battlefield and larp as some great General. This is why they are so upset that warfare is being abstracted in Vic3. These low IQs dont even understand the difference between grand strategy and operational level warfare. They are morons and any attempt at educating them is a waste of effort.
I'm upset the entire game is being dumbed down, not just warfare.
I'm actually impressed that Paradox SOMEHOW managed to frick up everything, from the economy, to logistics (which would be a huge part of the vaunted hands-off warfare system that only exists in your mind) to warfare, naturally, to politics, which... honestly boggles my mind. Please stop shilling for these incompetent Swedish hacks.
You can only LARP as Lincoln and watch your frick-up generals play passively.
Any person here, if put in the same position of heading a country during war would make Stalinist purges look like a picnic. And personally strangle MacArthur and McClellan with their bare hands.
the degredation of arguments in favour of vic3:
>actually it'll be REAL grand strategy
>n-no stop pointing out there's no more strategy here than in tic-tac-toe you're a bedwetter and want to larp as le general
homie
i want a fricking game
one that's fun to play
not cookie clicker 2: victorian edition
i don't even care about "larping as general with fondue!!!" or whatever strawman you've cooked up
if they'd competently abstracted warfare and perhaps more importantly, made the rest of the fricking game systems engaging, and not made every single economy in the game under direct control of the state, and had not made politics into a literal fricking eu4 fort minigame, and so on and so forth
it's amazing how badly paradox, and probably specifically wiz, fricked this whole thing up
paradox COULD'VE made a decent hands-off warfare system but they fricked it up and all we have now are morons like you who've gaslit themselves into believing there's any depth to the new "strategy"
>all we have now are morons like you who've gaslit themselves into believing there's any depth to the new "strategy"
That's your mistake, he's the one gaslighting you into thinking anyone is excited for Vicky 3. He's not a paradrone or even a shill, he's just pretending to be one to make you upset. He knows the game is gonna be shit just as well as everybody else does. This is the state of 4chin now, we went from pretending to hate things to elicit reaction to pretending to like things nobody in their right mind would like to elicit reaction.
Are there people this autistic? Whenever I assume someone is trolling and keep responding they eventually breakdown and it becomes clear they believe in the bullshit they spew.
You forget that a lot of people on this board and on /vg/ instinctively hate anyone who ever liked any of the PDX games, so whatever makes you mad is their joy. It's schadenfreude masquerading as shilling, that's why it all eventually devolves into arguments like "CK2/Vicky 2 were dogshit anyway".
>he's the one gaslighting you into thinking anyone is excited for Vicky 3
People on basedddit and troonycord are exicted but I guess that doesn't translate into posting on here
>basedddit
wtf why did it change from onions?
get wordfiltered, idiot
>paradox COULD'VE made a decent hands-off warfare system but they fricked it up
I can't even tell at this point if the plan was always to attempt to make a decent hands off war system in an overpriced DLC (or several overpriced DLC) or if they actually think what they have now is even slightly good.
It's actually far more likely that the devs legitimately have their heads up their ass and are in complete denial of their stupid decisions. They unironically think that just about every change they've made to the game is for the better and aren't wiling to compromise.
The flag occupation looked pretty nice when I played as Lanfang in the leak, shame about every other tag though. The Prussian occupation looks much less bad than the Mexican one too
Though the idea that it conveys more info than the strips is so totally nonsense on it's face that Wiz must be insanely up his own ass to even think it's a plausible face saving lie. At best it conveys exactly the same information (who's occupying whom) except now you have to remember every flag to know who's doing the occupation. If I didn't know that was the flag of Mexico in the first pic how would I tell at a glance that Mexico is occupying it rather than say American rebels for a meme ideology who use a made up flag? In the colour model this would almost never be a issue because you'd be able to see the continuity between Mexico's colour and the occupation colour, all they have to do is not be morons putting countries with similar colours right next to each other. Who's actually occupying France in pic2? If they're not caring about making it look ugly it would unironically convey the information better to just write OCCUPIED BY homosexualISTAN over it.
>Captcha TY MAP
Thank you indeed Wiz
dont even need to write occupied by, just put it in brackets or italics or something similar
or of course dont fix what isnt broke and instead work on more important things
haha wizfuc responded to my post in the shill forums.
I like the smoke graphics once many battles have been fought but I have no idea what I'm doing in war and the lack of vids about the game due to DMCA makes it worse
The lack of warfare and stockpile is going to be shit, and when they hit the announced disaster, they are going to blame the players. Been there, done that.