• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #69 - Feature Game Jam (part 1)

16_9.jpg


Hello again and happy Thursday! Today I'm going to tell you about a new dev team initiative we ran last week, after we had locked down the final 1.1 build - the Vicky 3 Feature Game Jam!

We know from experience that some of the best features and aspects of our games come from passionate developers acting on their own initiative to build what they want to see in the game. Sometimes this is a high-impact tweak to some UI element, other times new game content like new events or building types, or even some under-the-hood improvement to the game engine. For the Game Jam, we challenged devs to join up into cross-disciplinary teams and make the coolest feature they could think of in a week's time, with prizes for the team that could make the highest impact on the game. Here are some of the things they came up with!

Please note: only a few of these features will be included in 1.2, and there are no guarantees any of them will ever make it into the game or its future expansions. Some are cool prototypes that would take too much work to implement, while others may need a lot more supporting code or content to work as a standalone feature. Consider this a peek behind the curtain of what our team is experimenting with and what type of things might come in the future.

First up, we have team War Never Changes, with a set of experimental enhancements to the military system!

-----------

Hi, I’m Guilherme, one of the programmers! During this game jam, Nik - one of the designers - and I decided to team up to explore potential improvements for our military system. Because of that, we haven’t implemented many new things, but we did dig up things that could be potentially improved. For example:
  • Combat units on a front each have a 20% chance of suffering 5% - 15% casualties from attrition each week, an average of 2% casualties per week from attrition alone. This sounds like too much.
  • Generals are currently selected for battles mainly based on their total number of battalions. We should probably check their manpower and morale instead, and/or maybe their traits.

On the actual implementation side of things, we did a few things we thought would be fun to try out. Such as having simultaneous battles in a front:

DD69_1.png

As a game jam hack, I just made it so when battle advancement progress reaches 100% we spawn up to 2 battles in different states, as long as you have at least 2 advancing generals. This is funny and a bit chaotic, but turns out this might introduce other issues as it affects the rhythm of war and also gives the advancing side some advantage: if they win one of those battles they capture a bunch of provinces; if the defending side wins one of those, welp, they just won’t lose a bunch of provinces.

We also added the ability of locking province captures to the same state as the battle province, which again, is fun as it looks more like a well planned military invasion, but currently has the effect of capturing whole states most of the time.

DD69_2.png

All in all, I really appreciate how this game jam gave us the opportunity to explore all sorts of potential improvements for Vicky 3. We certainly can improve many things, but we need to be very careful as our systems are interconnected and small changes in one system can have a big impact in other parts.

-----------

Hello, my name is Nik and I am the second half of this Game Jam experiment. As stated above I am a designer on the team. My goal going into this Game Jam was to see what quality of life could be added/explored for the game without needing to rework many systems. Primary goals I had going into this week were:
  • Communicate information to the player more readily
  • Reduce some of the pain points that frustrate myself and other player
    • War Exhaustion ticking
    • Attrition
    • Equipment Modifiers
    • Generals and Troops selected for Battles

As stated above by Guilherme, one of the primary goals of this was to experiment with the idea of multiple battles. I personally wanted to experiment with the idea that the length of the front would determine the amount of battles taking place across it and that battles should be spread out and only take place one per state to attempt to avoid player frustration of battles potentially canceling each other out.

Another goal was to attempt to increase the information that the player could easily see. First goal was to include the advancement bar of the opposing side to the Front tab so it can be seen there as well.

DD69_3.png

Additionally, I wanted the player to have more information on the battle screen. For this we added a demoralized count for units. We noticed it might be confusing for the player to see that they started a battle with 15k troops only to see that they have lost the battle, but only showed that 3k died and 6k were wounded, but at the end of the battle it shows that you have 0 troops remaining.

DD69_4.png

I wanted to look at the ticking of war exhaustion as I felt like losing one province could sometimes have a massive impact on the effect of the war exhaustion. There is a lot I would like to do with this system in the future, but for now I focused mainly on lowering the values of these numbers while increasing the impact the loss of men has on a country's war exhaustion.

The equipment Adjustment Modifier can be irritating at times, and added to prevent people from just turning their army on and off again, without penalties. I have now made it so the penalty is worse for the primary PM, but all other PMs will now have a smaller one, that will affect you as a whole but should not inflict as much pain as before when switching.

Another area I wanted to improve was which generals and troops were selected for certain battles. Often inferior allied troops and their generals would take the battle and tie the front down. There are now additional checks to increase the chances of a General being picked based on his traits, as well as the PMs of the troops under his command.

-----------

The changes this team made to various aspects of warfare will be made available in 1.2, but (likely) with multiple battles limited to single states turned off by default. If you'd like to experiment with multiple battles and/or state-limited battles you'll easily be able to change some defines in the script files to do so, or download a mod that does it for you. In the interim we will use this team's work to test and attempt to balance multiple battles per front to see if we can make it a viable feature for the future, without accidentally introducing game-destroying metas like "whoever has the most generals win".

Next up, team Cookie Clicker, consisting of our VFX artist, Sean. His addition adds visual effects when you interact with certain parts of the terrain:

DD69_5_FULL.gif

Improving the interactivity of our map is something we're interested in exploring further, and we will use this as a prototype for future exploration in this area!

Next up was some prototype work on more advanced resource potentials:

-----------

Hello everyone, Paul here to talk about the project I was working on for the Vicky 3 Feature Game Jam. This project was titled “Breaking Ground” because it's both related to resources and is an exploratory prototype of what could be done in the future. I took the discoverable/depletable resource system that we utilize for resources like Oil/Rubber/Gold and attempted to apply them to Logging/Mining/Fishing and other normally “capped resources” in game.

Forestry is by far the most fleshed out of the prototypes I built this week, so we will talk about that one. The intention is that forests of the world are all accessible at game start (there is no hidden undiscovered resource) but can suffer from depletion, in this case deforestation.

Deforestation is dependent upon a few things, the higher techs you utilize for base production increase the chance of the resource to be depleted. If it is depleted the logging camp is replaced with a “clear cut" building which can still produce lumber but at a heavily reduced rate. There is also the intent of adding where this mechanic can be utilized to better represent natural and man-made disasters which have affected resource procurement.

Deforestation is shown by clearcut camps which produce resources at a greatly reduced rate
DD69_6.png

Now why a separate building instead of a modifier? Well it's a prototype and the system lends itself well to that, since it's what we do with gold fields to gold mines. A different building is also a clearer indication to the player of these events (as opposed to a modifier on the building itself), it also makes it where production methods are available, and the profit calculations are different so that you more easily see the employment changes. Lumber Camps will also have new production methods to manage their extraction, decreasing depletion chances at the cost of throughput, while depleted camps have the ability to enable conservation efforts to try and mitigate the loss of resources that have already occurred.

An example of resource management a player can enact to prevent deforestation, or embrace it for much needed throughput bonuses
DD69_7.png

On a personal level, I think it adds to the mindset of the time. What do I care about 2 levels of deforestation and their inability to produce? I have 40+ levels of lumber left, this is the price of progress! Seeing the rate of balance between the two buildings shows the cost of advancement or progress of industrialization as you wish to see it. Also it allows us to easily measure deforestation and tie that into events and Interest Group reactions.

There’s plenty of places we can go with this, the Conservation Movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, tying industrialization with actual ecological effects that will upset IGs and affect pops. This is not meant to be a complete feature unto itself but a means of making a more realistic narrative to the game. Early industrializers might run afoul of deforestation and poor resource management, and will seek other markets to alleviate this effect, much like we have done historically. Can you keep the balance of man vs nature in effect, or is that even truly your concern when you are facing extreme radicalization and you need to meet the needs of your pops at any cost?

An example of the resource management a player can enact on clearings, Do you let nature take its course, get involved, or just keep exploiting what you can?
DD69_8.png

What about Whaling/Fishing and Mineral Resources? Here I look to follow the Forestry model where resources are available but can be depleted due to overutilization - as the fisheries of the world were very much subject to the tragedy of the commons.

The difference is as tech scales, the effect of fishing scales not only in depletion but in range. I am experimenting with having the actions of a neighboring nation affect the resource potential of its neighbors. Overfishing in Great Britain can cause knock-on effects to the eventual depletion of the Fisheries of Iceland and Canada/US. The scale of these effects are still very much in a prototype stage. This applies to both fish and whaling industries.

Where Fishing Industries differ is the potential to maybe do aquaculture back at home. My research is showing that it's slightly out of our historical timescale but it's technically a possibility. The world started ramping up aquaculture in the 1950’s to 1960’s but that was in response to the decrease in fish population, who’s to say if an ahistorical Victorian era that goes hard on world fish supplies might need to invest in these technologies a few decades early?

Mineral Resources are primarily focused around discovery over the potential of being depleted. At the start of the game a fair chunk of resources will be available for exploitation, but most will be hidden and require discovery and exploitation to be started. Mines will have the chance to discover new resources as they start excavation down below. These efforts can be expedited by resource exploration PMs, increasing the educated labor force requirement and likely a more modernized set of inputs. In this way, mineral deposits are still greatly important but there is an investment potential in them, the longer you hold and develop a resource - the more you may get to access. For example, you cannot gain all levels of coal in Wales with just hands and picks, some of that is going to require modernization.

-----------

Finally, Mike surprised us all by not doing anything at all with trains this time. We're not exactly sure what he's up to, but whatever it is I think it emphasizes the point in the beginning that there are absolutely no guarantees any of this will make it into the game as-is, now or in the future! If any of you have theories of what this might be all about, please give the rest of us a clue in the comments below.

DD69_9.png


DD69_10.png


DD69_11.png

Next week we will look at the remainder of the Game Jam entries, and that will be the last dev diary of 2022 as most of the team heads out for winter holidays, returning mid-January. Until then!
 
  • 91Like
  • 31Love
  • 16Haha
  • 7
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
Instead of less doomstacks you'll probably get only more AI deaths...

Also, absolute priority before doing something like that should be allowing to decide the size of your armies because you just CAN NOT make your doomstack smaller until your general dies (or you "kill" him) which is beyond ridiculous

If you recruit more generals in the same HQ, it should split troops between them, depending on their ranks, and have armies of different size in the same HQ. Hope it helps.

Oh won't get me disagreeing that you should be able to choose how many armies to raise.

Hmm, if I recall correctly, I believe the base number of battalions commanded by a general in game is 20. Since each battalion consists of 1,000 soldiers, that meant 20,000 soldiers. That is roughly around the size of a division, though the actual size of a division would have been different in mid-nineteenth century compared to today (divisions during the Napoleonic Wars were much smaller).

However, it appears that the lowest rank for a general, brigadier general, is typically for a much smaller formation, a brigade of mere 4,000, hence the name of that rank. Currently, in game, there is a cap on number of military leaders you can have at any time (though, it is not clear whether this is overall or are separate for generals and admirals) which may or may not be one of the reasons that even a brigadier general can command a division-sized "army" in the game. Otherwise, with this cap, you could have a large number of reserves, especially in a large country. It is not clear why there is this cap on the number of military leaders but it may be for gameplay balance or for performance reasons (too many characters eats up too much memory maybe?).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I wonder what the others worked on. It's a bit odd to see so many non-economic/non-political ideas from the team working on such an economic/political game.
Eh, it takes a lot of different skillsets to work on a game. Plus, the nature of a competition is an idea that can be executed in a limited amount of time, and economic ideas take longer to implement, test, and show their impact.

...Also I fully expect there to be a little bit of fatigue on the "One More Market Rework" front. Sometimes you just want to make dinosaurs ride trains.
 
  • 8
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
From a Canadian perspective, the lumber industry decimated the fur trade in Eastern Canada as the forests were clear cut. I'd love if there was some mechanic involved where furs could be produced (not sure if they should represent fabric or something more akin to Silk) but production would go down substantially if one switches to clearcut, which they might do because theres huge forests in Canada and they were worth more than furs at the time.

Similarly, having a subsistence building representing the Buffalo hunt would be cool, as well as a mechanic for the decline of Bison on the prairies/great plains. This building could be somewhat related to arable land usage in relevant states.
Probably would make the most sense to represents furs as just luxury clothes directly, but they definitely should be represented.
 
If you recruit more generals in the same HQ, it should split troops between them, depending on their ranks, and have armies of different size in the same HQ. Hope it helps.
Until you hit the rather bizarre limit of 20 generals. I've had games with troops in more than 20 strategic regions. You can't use the "spam out more generals" technique then.
 
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Another area I wanted to improve was which generals and troops were selected for certain battles. Often inferior allied troops and their generals would take the battle and tie the front down. There are now additional checks to increase the chances of a General being picked based on his traits, as well as the PMs of the troops under his command.

Have you considered adding something like a Field Marshal? The war leader could appoint one capable general, who is present there, to "lead" the front, and he could either dictate if everyone is on the offense, defense or able to choose a stance for themselves.

It happens too often that I take a superior defensive position and remain passive, for the one and only purpose to tie down enemy troops. Nothing more. When I have the advantage at that front, and that's a common scenario, the enemy usually also goes into defense mode. But then my allies/subjects come in and throw their 10 batallions of farmers against 500 batallions of Skirmish Infantry with Shrapnel Artillery. Over and over again.

I wish I could tell them to stay still or just bugger off, or have a Field Marshal commanding all troops on that front, who could force a common stance on that front.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Hmm, if I recall correctly, I believe the base number of battalions commanded by a general in game is 20. Since each battalion consists of 1,000 soldiers, that meant 20,000 soldiers. That is roughly around the size of a division, though the actual size of a division would have been different in mid-nineteenth century compared to today (divisions during the Napoleonic Wars were much smaller).

However, it appears that the lowest rank for a general, brigadier general, is typically for a much smaller formation, a brigade of mere 4,000, hence the name of that rank. Currently, in game, there is a cap on number of military leaders you can have at any time (though, it is not clear whether this is overall or are separate for generals and admirals) which may or may not be one of the reasons that even a brigadier general can command a division-sized "army" in the game. Otherwise, with this cap, you could have a large number of reserves, especially in a large country. It is not clear why there is this cap on the number of military leaders but it may be for gameplay balance or for performance reasons (too many characters eats up too much memory maybe?).
Oh I haven't reached the cap before, so it appears that the Generals system is even worse than I thought
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
View attachment 924507

Hello again and happy Thursday! Today I'm going to tell you about a new dev team initiative we ran last week, after we had locked down the final 1.1 build - the Vicky 3 Feature Game Jam!

We know from experience that some of the best features and aspects of our games come from passionate developers acting on their own initiative to build what they want to see in the game. Sometimes this is a high-impact tweak to some UI element, other times new game content like new events or building types, or even some under-the-hood improvement to the game engine. For the Game Jam, we challenged devs to join up into cross-disciplinary teams and make the coolest feature they could think of in a week's time, with prizes for the team that could make the highest impact on the game. Here are some of the things they came up with!

Please note: only a few of these features will be included in 1.2, and there are no guarantees any of them will ever make it into the game or its future expansions. Some are cool prototypes that would take too much work to implement, while others may need a lot more supporting code or content to work as a standalone feature. Consider this a peek behind the curtain of what our team is experimenting with and what type of things might come in the future.

First up, we have team War Never Changes, with a set of experimental enhancements to the military system!

-----------

Hi, I’m Guilherme, one of the programmers! During this game jam, Nik - one of the designers - and I decided to team up to explore potential improvements for our military system. Because of that, we haven’t implemented many new things, but we did dig up things that could be potentially improved. For example:
  • Combat units on a front each have a 20% chance of suffering 5% - 15% casualties from attrition each week, an average of 2% casualties per week from attrition alone. This sounds like too much.
  • Generals are currently selected for battles mainly based on their total number of battalions. We should probably check their manpower and morale instead, and/or maybe their traits.

On the actual implementation side of things, we did a few things we thought would be fun to try out. Such as having simultaneous battles in a front:

As a game jam hack, I just made it so when battle advancement progress reaches 100% we spawn up to 2 battles in different states, as long as you have at least 2 advancing generals. This is funny and a bit chaotic, but turns out this might introduce other issues as it affects the rhythm of war and also gives the advancing side some advantage: if they win one of those battles they capture a bunch of provinces; if the defending side wins one of those, welp, they just won’t lose a bunch of provinces.

We also added the ability of locking province captures to the same state as the battle province, which again, is fun as it looks more like a well planned military invasion, but currently has the effect of capturing whole states most of the time.

All in all, I really appreciate how this game jam gave us the opportunity to explore all sorts of potential improvements for Vicky 3. We certainly can improve many things, but we need to be very careful as our systems are interconnected and small changes in one system can have a big impact in other parts.

-----------

Hello, my name is Nik and I am the second half of this Game Jam experiment. As stated above I am a designer on the team. My goal going into this Game Jam was to see what quality of life could be added/explored for the game without needing to rework many systems. Primary goals I had going into this week were:
  • Communicate information to the player more readily
  • Reduce some of the pain points that frustrate myself and other player
    • War Exhaustion ticking
    • Attrition
    • Equipment Modifiers
    • Generals and Troops selected for Battles

As stated above by Guilherme, one of the primary goals of this was to experiment with the idea of multiple battles. I personally wanted to experiment with the idea that the length of the front would determine the amount of battles taking place across it and that battles should be spread out and only take place one per state to attempt to avoid player frustration of battles potentially canceling each other out.

Another goal was to attempt to increase the information that the player could easily see. First goal was to include the advancement bar of the opposing side to the Front tab so it can be seen there as well.

Additionally, I wanted the player to have more information on the battle screen. For this we added a demoralized count for units. We noticed it might be confusing for the player to see that they started a battle with 15k troops only to see that they have lost the battle, but only showed that 3k died and 6k were wounded, but at the end of the battle it shows that you have 0 troops remaining.

I wanted to look at the ticking of war exhaustion as I felt like losing one province could sometimes have a massive impact on the effect of the war exhaustion. There is a lot I would like to do with this system in the future, but for now I focused mainly on lowering the values of these numbers while increasing the impact the loss of men has on a country's war exhaustion.

The equipment Adjustment Modifier can be irritating at times, and added to prevent people from just turning their army on and off again, without penalties. I have now made it so the penalty is worse for the primary PM, but all other PMs will now have a smaller one, that will affect you as a whole but should not inflict as much pain as before when switching.

Another area I wanted to improve was which generals and troops were selected for certain battles. Often inferior allied troops and their generals would take the battle and tie the front down. There are now additional checks to increase the chances of a General being picked based on his traits, as well as the PMs of the troops under his command.

-----------

The changes this team made to various aspects of warfare will be made available in 1.2, but (likely) with multiple battles limited to single states turned off by default. If you'd like to experiment with multiple battles and/or state-limited battles you'll easily be able to change some defines in the script files to do so, or download a mod that does it for you. In the interim we will use this team's work to test and attempt to balance multiple battles per front to see if we can make it a viable feature for the future, without accidentally introducing game-destroying metas like "whoever has the most generals win".

Next up, team Cookie Clicker, consisting of our VFX artist, Sean. His addition adds visual effects when you interact with certain parts of the terrain:

Improving the interactivity of our map is something we're interested in exploring further, and we will use this as a prototype for future exploration in this area!

Next up was some prototype work on more advanced resource potentials:

-----------

Hello everyone, Paul here to talk about the project I was working on for the Vicky 3 Feature Game Jam. This project was titled “Breaking Ground” because it's both related to resources and is an exploratory prototype of what could be done in the future. I took the discoverable/depletable resource system that we utilize for resources like Oil/Rubber/Gold and attempted to apply them to Logging/Mining/Fishing and other normally “capped resources” in game.

Forestry is by far the most fleshed out of the prototypes I built this week, so we will talk about that one. The intention is that forests of the world are all accessible at game start (there is no hidden undiscovered resource) but can suffer from depletion, in this case deforestation.

Deforestation is dependent upon a few things, the higher techs you utilize for base production increase the chance of the resource to be depleted. If it is depleted the logging camp is replaced with a “clear cut" building which can still produce lumber but at a heavily reduced rate. There is also the intent of adding where this mechanic can be utilized to better represent natural and man-made disasters which have affected resource procurement.

Deforestation is shown by clearcut camps which produce resources at a greatly reduced rate
View attachment 924514
Now why a separate building instead of a modifier? Well it's a prototype and the system lends itself well to that, since it's what we do with gold fields to gold mines. A different building is also a clearer indication to the player of these events (as opposed to a modifier on the building itself), it also makes it where production methods are available, and the profit calculations are different so that you more easily see the employment changes. Lumber Camps will also have new production methods to manage their extraction, decreasing depletion chances at the cost of throughput, while depleted camps have the ability to enable conservation efforts to try and mitigate the loss of resources that have already occurred.

An example of resource management a player can enact to prevent deforestation, or embrace it for much needed throughput bonuses
View attachment 924515
On a personal level, I think it adds to the mindset of the time. What do I care about 2 levels of deforestation and their inability to produce? I have 40+ levels of lumber left, this is the price of progress! Seeing the rate of balance between the two buildings shows the cost of advancement or progress of industrialization as you wish to see it. Also it allows us to easily measure deforestation and tie that into events and Interest Group reactions.

There’s plenty of places we can go with this, the Conservation Movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, tying industrialization with actual ecological effects that will upset IGs and affect pops. This is not meant to be a complete feature unto itself but a means of making a more realistic narrative to the game. Early industrializers might run afoul of deforestation and poor resource management, and will seek other markets to alleviate this effect, much like we have done historically. Can you keep the balance of man vs nature in effect, or is that even truly your concern when you are facing extreme radicalization and you need to meet the needs of your pops at any cost?

An example of the resource management a player can enact on clearings, Do you let nature take its course, get involved, or just keep exploiting what you can?
View attachment 924517
What about Whaling/Fishing and Mineral Resources? Here I look to follow the Forestry model where resources are available but can be depleted due to overutilization - as the fisheries of the world were very much subject to the tragedy of the commons.

The difference is as tech scales, the effect of fishing scales not only in depletion but in range. I am experimenting with having the actions of a neighboring nation affect the resource potential of its neighbors. Overfishing in Great Britain can cause knock-on effects to the eventual depletion of the Fisheries of Iceland and Canada/US. The scale of these effects are still very much in a prototype stage. This applies to both fish and whaling industries.

Where Fishing Industries differ is the potential to maybe do aquaculture back at home. My research is showing that it's slightly out of our historical timescale but it's technically a possibility. The world started ramping up aquaculture in the 1950’s to 1960’s but that was in response to the decrease in fish population, who’s to say if an ahistorical Victorian era that goes hard on world fish supplies might need to invest in these technologies a few decades early?

Mineral Resources are primarily focused around discovery over the potential of being depleted. At the start of the game a fair chunk of resources will be available for exploitation, but most will be hidden and require discovery and exploitation to be started. Mines will have the chance to discover new resources as they start excavation down below. These efforts can be expedited by resource exploration PMs, increasing the educated labor force requirement and likely a more modernized set of inputs. In this way, mineral deposits are still greatly important but there is an investment potential in them, the longer you hold and develop a resource - the more you may get to access. For example, you cannot gain all levels of coal in Wales with just hands and picks, some of that is going to require modernization.

-----------

Finally, Mike surprised us all by not doing anything at all with trains this time. We're not exactly sure what he's up to, but whatever it is I think it emphasizes the point in the beginning that there are absolutely no guarantees any of this will make it into the game as-is, now or in the future! If any of you have theories of what this might be all about, please give the rest of us a clue in the comments below.

Next week we will look at the remainder of the Game Jam entries, and that will be the last dev diary of 2022 as most of the team heads out for winter holidays, returning mid-January. Until then!
I would love to see an Easter Egg about a dinosaur general xd
 
  • 1
Reactions:
On warfare: having 2 battles on the same front could be fun, but given that generals teleport back home after conquering provinces these days, I suspect this could introduce new bugs.

On logging: we already have a global shortage in hardwood in late games. Would deforestation make it worse?
I think there definitely needs to be a rebalancing of Hardwood. I find it odd at how little hardwood there is given how just a century later than the end date of the game we aren't seeing a shortage. I do like deforestation, but only if it can be balanced so that some nations manage their forests effectively. I don't want to see every AI market wood depleted and then a massive run on mine.
 
Can you please make the penalty for switching methods for military scaled from the base of the old method?

Innovations in warfare pretty much only happened during war time. That's the main time when new innovations were implemented. But trying to upgrade units while at war is suicide.

I'm fine with it taking a year for the new method to come online but upgrading to skirmishing infantry from line infantry shouldn't make your army worse than irregulars. You should start at line infantry stats and it should take you a year to get to skirmishing infantry stats.
I need more then one like for posts like that
 
  • 1
Reactions:
One thing that might be good to know but wasn't in the dev diary is that all of this was done during PDT (personal development time), which is time allocated to all Paradox devs to work on whatever they want to grow their skills or do something they're passionate about. We gave everyone the option to participate in the Game Jam if they wanted to do so for their PDT, but this was not taken out of time that would otherwise have gone to patching etc (and was done after 1.1 was already locked down).

Sean needs to make it so when you click on a car a tiny fireball blows it up and exactly 4 pops suddenly die, 1 worker and 3 dependents.
I'm not saying that the idea is amazing... because it is definitely better than amazing. I need vehicle explosions.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Iachek (and the gamejam work by everyone - lots of great ideas there :) ) and the extra info from you, Wiz and Ofaloaf :) I think the balance sought in terms of new ideas vs not breaking things sounds very good (as you well say, multiple front battles sounds good, but it's such a large change to the system I can think of at least 4-5 things that could go wrong just off the top of my head - none insurmountable, but just a sign those kind of changes are worth taking with care). I really like Paul's idea of resource management/depletion extending to forests and fisheries, that's very cool :)


Revisions to this system is on our radar, yeah. Decaying flat debuffs for any changes made serves its purpose to discourage funding your military only during wartime, but is not very immersive, I agree.

This is one of the numerous issues that come from having no stockpiles, so equipment "insta-spawns" on PM change. Historically (and, indeed, today, as both Russia and western militaries are finding out with the situation in Ukraine), equipment and ammunition stockpiles are vital to being able to maintain combat operations for any period of time (and the issues with insta-ships from buildings is even more immersion-blasting). Going forward, I expect that the only way to solve this, if there is a desire to solve it, is to have a mixed stockpile/PM approach - where the PM in the building represents the trained soldiers/sailors/etc., but that each building has a stockpile of equipment (that is PM-specific) that it builds up based on its PM. The penalties for lack of equipment then kick in if the stockpile is too low to support all the troops in action.

There are still difficulties about how to manage the transition (and all sorts of UX challenges), but there could be some kind of "auto-fallback" situation where a building uses the PM of equipment that is in stockpile while the new stuff isn't available, until the new stuff has built up. It would also represent the choice for players/AI between training a building on new equipment while out of battle and then committing modern force all at once, or introducing it in dribs and drabs because the situation is desperate, so it may not be decisive, but it's better than nothing.

There may well be better approaches. That said, at the end of the day, though, without military equipment stockpiles and actual ships, I expect (although I'll happily be proven wrong) there'll always be a fundamentally unsolvable problem (ie, I just don't think the maths for systems that are immersive are doable without some kind of stockpiles - similar issues present with the 'convoy' system) in the connection between the economic and military models of V3.

For a V3-themed maritime/naval pic, here's a picture of the Russian Baltic Fleet firing on British fishing trawlers during their transit of the North Sea in 1904. Russia was at war with Japan, and while Britain was neutral in the conflict, it was allied with Japan and (iirc) someone had spread rumours of Japanese torpedo boats in the North Sea (logistically quite a stretch, but people will believe anything) leading to some jumpy Russian sailors opening fire on a British fishing fleet, and a very serious diplomatic incident.

1670542668329.png
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think thay could use same mechanics as for industry reserves. So Over time your barracs "stockpile" reserves of equipment in "money units" and when war happen those reserves are deplited when unit mobilised at front and that reserve mitigate equipment shorteges that you get when go to war. Maybe with some sort of PM that regulate how much equipment (ammunition) you use at war with small modifiers. Like "Use 200% ammunitions" is +10/+10 while "use 500% ammunitions" is +20/+20. So if you have prebuild militirized eco you could go all way with 500% ammunition usage to endless artilery barage with hot meals at front.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I think thay could use same mechanics as for industry reserves. So Over time your barracs "stockpile" reserves of equipment in "money units" and when war happen those reserves are deplited when unit mobilised at front and that reserve mitigate equipment shorteges that you get when go to war. Maybe with some sort of PM that regulate how much equipment (ammunition) you use at war with small modifiers. Like "Use 200% ammunitions" is +10/+10 while "use 500% ammunitions" is +20/+20. So if you have prebuild militirized eco you could go all way with 500% ammunition usage to endless artilery barage with hot meals at front.

That's not a bad idea, but that wouldn't solve the problem of the different PMs - so, for example, someone could stockpile "reserves" under a cheap PM, then flick to an expensive (but more effective) PM at war start. This is even more of an issue for ships, we don't want navies suddenly turning from sailing ships into dreadnoughts overnight (noting that, maluses aside, this is exactly what they do now - it's some impressive transmutation! However, the maluses associated with it are a trap for players and a challenge for the AI).

I'd also be cautious of penalties based on having more reserves - generally speaking, the main issue with reserves is running out, so more than needed would generally just be "forces operate with normal doctrine" - but not having enough might be "forces operate with reduced artillery barrages", and then being very short and they might not have any arty support at all, for an example.

So by having PM-specific stockpiles, it means if an army wants to be able to use a PM in wartime, they need to have effective stockpiles in peacetime (which requires running the building with that PM during peacetime). Similarly, having actual ships, rather than sailors manning buildings with characteristics that can instantly vary, means investing in navies will feel far more immersive.

I strongly support the buildings remaining at the centre of the relationship, but at the moment navies in-game (while mechanically, in terms of what they do, missions and how they operate, and trade routes, are a big step forward) feel very odd, and it's literally possible to switch a fleet of 100 ships of the line to 100 dreadnoughts overnight (and after a year, equipment permitting, have them operate with no maluses).
 
If I could make a suggestion on the multiple battles on a front, you could have it so that two generals can fight a single general in two separate battles if there’s only one general on the defending or attacking side. The game could then choose troops from that single general and split them, and the general’s modifiers could be less effective since he can’t focus his attention (or there could be some sort of debuff for each battle taking place that the general is currently managing). The game could try and match one general to one general, and you could also generate cases where troops from that overstretched general can’t reach a potential battle site so a couple provinces are captured.

not sure how that would work on YOUR end but it’s a thought I had
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: