THANK YOUVIc 3 has an idiotic war system in my opinion
- 1
THANK YOUVIc 3 has an idiotic war system in my opinion
Ooh, this is a spicy topic. I actually like it for what it is - the line go up simulator. The war front system works better for major wars in the 20th century. Applying it to 19th century warfare feels immersion breaking. What I hope they do is update system to have it shift from a army based system to front gradually as you unlock techs like Trench Warfare.
My bigger annoyance is Diplomatic Plays. Wish they just took the EU4 diplo system. Oh and Naval. Naval warfare sucks.
For learning the game, I recommend a compact nation with everything you need to industrialise - Belgium is my recommendation.
If the fragmented HRE exists in your timeline in Vic3, I wonder how it will work....
However, despite the joy brought by Helene's birth, whispers about succession began to circulate at court. So far, Akrotatos V had fathered only two daughters—Euporia and the newborn Helene—while his younger brother, Spartokos, could already boast a son, known as Spartokos the Younger.
This dynasty needs to either allow women to inherit, or get better at siring male heirs. Because otherwise they'll die out at some point.However, the death of Akrotatos V left the empire in a state of uncertainty—he had no male heir, meaning the throne passed to his younger brother, Spartokos IX.
I very much concur. They do not seem in having much good fortune at the whole "male heir" business.This dynasty needs to either allow women to inherit, or get better at siring male heirs. Because otherwise they'll die out at some point.
Ooh, this is a spicy topic. I actually like it for what it is - the line go up simulator. The war front system works better for major wars in the 20th century. Applying it to 19th century warfare feels immersion breaking. What I hope they do is update system to have it shift from a army based system to front gradually as you unlock techs like Trench Warfare.
My bigger annoyance is Diplomatic Plays. Wish they just took the EU4 diplo system. Oh and Naval. Naval warfare sucks.
For learning the game, I recommend a compact nation with everything you need to industrialise - Belgium is my recommendation.
If the fragmented HRE exists in your timeline in Vic3, I wonder how it will work....
Yeah, you don't have a big 'front' where huge million strong armies entrench every meter of it until WW1, because there's no need to and it's very expensive in men and money. It should only really become a thing when out of line of sight artillery becomes the norm, and an army can obliterate another without seeing it from miles away. At that point, you need to entrench.
So...sometime roughly in the late 1890s OTL/early 20th century (and we only noticed when two great powers actually went to war a decade later).
The tech tree being what it is, I suppose it could occur sooner, but it'd be such a big deal that the army wielding them in large numbers would become unbeatable until everyone else figured it out in a mad scramble. The land equivalent of HMS Dreadnought. I doubt any but the most industrious countries could manage such a feat before the last two decades of the 19th century no matter what, for supply, logistical and economic reasons.
This dynasty needs to either allow women to inherit, or get better at siring male heirs. Because otherwise they'll die out at some point.
I very much concur. They do not seem in having much good fortune at the whole "male heir" business.
I agree with your opinions about the presentation of wars and diplomacy in Victori3. This game is really an economic game and even here I am not sure if it does it well because I do not know if there are any economic and market collapses present. HRE was converted as a power block. Diplomacy is probably, supposed to be subject to changes this year, maybe.
To be fair, there is a big problem with modelling 18th and 19th century global trade and economics and industry...one country can and did dominate all three to such an extent that the other powers are relegated to competing for a distant second place, at least until massive nation states like the US, Russia and unified Germany begin to claw into the UK market lead.
In game, if you set things up properly in the early years, Britain basically cannot lose, has infinite wealth, and unlike reality, is led by one supreme intelligence throughout a century more of development. There's no competing with that if you stick to anything historically focused.
Big deal market collapses should be starting to kick in around the 1870s onwards, as most powers have begun industrialising, growth is skyrocketing but also vulnerable in a way it never has been before, and the Labour movement really starts demanding change as soon as the first crash happens.
the fundamental problem with Victoria 3 is that you're not playing as the state, you're playing as the "spirit of the nation" and can do things that the actual state would never do. in Victoria 2, sure, you can self-sabotage to bring about a communist revolution (maybe that's what Nicholas ii was doing otl) but you can't simply click a become communist button like you can in 3. it's just a very non-immersive game unfortunately
The princes continue to support their own downfall... Taurica is lucky to have such docile subjects.![]()
The introduction of a new tax in 1472 AD by Spartokos IX was one of the important steps in the centralization process of the Tauric Empire. This reform imposed on the grand princes the obligation to make regular payments to the imperial treasury, significantly strengthening the monarch's position at the expense of regional rulers.
This was the culmination of nearly two decades of intense diplomacy by Spartokos IX. The new law faced resistance, but the emperor's skillful politics, supported by the dynastic marriages of his daughters and the deft actions of Empress Sibel, secured the support of key electors and weakened opposition.
This reform had far-reaching consequences, making imperial power more financially independent and limiting the potential for political rebellion by the grand princes. A steady source of income enabled the development of the administration, military, and further investments in the empire's infrastructure.
I'm starting to think this dynasty might be cursed with regards to their ability to sire heirs... How many times is it now that a younger brother has had to inherit because there weren't any sons in this dynasty?After the death of his only son, Spartokos X found himself in a complicated dynastic situation. His younger brother, Eumelos, was recognized as the official heir to the throne. The emperor, unable to secure his own line of succession, began to treat his brother with suspicion and coldness.
It is truly worrisome.I'm starting to think this dynasty might be cursed with regards to their ability to sire heirs... How many times is it now that a younger brother has had to inherit because there weren't any sons in this dynasty?
If Taurica ever loses control of the Empire, Eumelos II is indirectly to blame for throwing away a huge natural advantage to being elected.In response to the opposition from some of the dukes, the emperor decided to expand the circle of electors by granting electoral rights to three new grand duchies—Tahent, Kujavia, and Golshyn. Tahent and Kujavia received the votes previously held by Gorgippia and Phanagoria, while Golshyn replaced Samogitia, which had lost its position following its defeat and absorption by Lithuania, which later released it under pressure from other duchies and the emperor.
This decision not only weakened the influence of the reform's opponents but also ensured Eumelos II had enough votes to push through his changes. It was a risky move, as it altered the electoral system of the empire, but the emperor consciously took this risk, believing that the long-term benefits would outweigh any short-term problems.