Its absolutely embarrassing how broken this game still is, the devs need to postpone any more DLC before they have fixed the basics.

[Spy01]

I just want to share a very normal situation in this game:

You pick Prussia, one of the "main characters" of Victoria 3, and want to complete the Slesvig Holstein Question.

To beat the mission you have to directly own at least 1 of the provinces 2, and Denmark much have no control anymore. To do this you then have to start a conquer state diplo play against one of the vassals (there is no transfer vassal diplo play). Since the other vassal for some reason is not automatically dragged into this war and you can't add war goals for subjects not in the diplo play, all you could do is to add the liberate subject war goal to at least remove the other vassal from Danish control. I would have preferred to take both states, but the game doesn't support this. That,s already the first issues with Vic3 and the game has barely begun.

I have Sweden, Russia and Austria on my side. I added Sweden since I can't ask mecklenburg (or any nation) for military access, and I can't force access as this is only possible when the country borders both war leaders. They unfortunately only border Holstein. So the only option was to go through Sweden. Another way this game is broken.

Neither Austria or Russia bothered to deploy any troops to the front, so while Denmark and GB where greatly outnumbered on paper, they managed to easily hold the strait and then eventually start pushing into Sweden. This now the third way this game is fundamentally broken.

I ask what the point of all the changes from Victoria 2 is when it all works much worse. War, especially for the AI, was supposed to work better without micro. Instead my allies are worse than in Victoria 2. Units also don't consume from a stockpile anymore, so the AI can support massive armies with no real production of weaponry. They just take the +50% cost and thats it. Its probably cheaper overall than building that whole supply chain and wasting opportunity cost for the construction sectors.

When I look at this game's Steam page and update history I am shocked how they have spent so much time adding tons of gimmicky DLC features while basics like this still don't work.

And again, this is just what you meet a few years into the game as a major player.

 

[Spy01]

"But its an economy simulator"

Economy is mostly just an endless cycle of building buildings to satisfy pops, construction sectors and army. You will super quickly run out of pops or resource deposits. You think you get more efficient as your tech increases and you get new production methods, but this requires longer supply chains and high qualifications. Wanna then import goods? Trade is both tedious because its manual and useless as the AI can't build a proper economy. Colonisation was broken until the last DLC + patch. The game now finally understand that no, I am not colonizing Africa to make the locals rich, I am actually just trying to get cheap raw materials. This took the Vic3 devs 2 years to fix.

This was all much, much better in Victoria 2 even with its many issues. Its not fun in Vic3 and you never feel rewarded for doing well. In Victoria 2 I could plan my economy well and start to see real returns 15-20 years into the game, then ease up on the micro and do other things in the game. In Vic3 Its not until mid or endgame that I feel like I have a solid economic base and can let the AI handle it somewhat.

This is all worse the bigger your nation is as the micro is more time consuming. Both player controlled auto expand and private construction is braindead, so everything has to be manually controlled.

 

[AlexNereča]

I can't ask mecklenburg (or any nation) for military access

Classic problem that the military access system in the very next update to be released was specifically described in a video by the devs as being something they wanted to address for this exact scenario.

Units also don't consume from a stockpile anymore, so the AI can support massive armies with no real production of weaponry.

We'll see what happens when they change military goods shortages to affect organisation rather than just morale.

 

[AlexNereča]

Trade is both tedious because its manual and useless as the AI can't build a proper economy.

Well I dunno if the next update will address AI deficiencies, but we'll have to see what the new autonomous trade system will be like. I'd be surprised if we really have to resort to constantly signing new diplomatic treaties for the goods you want because private traders can't do it for you.

 

[exi123]

I just want to share a very normal situation in this game:

You pick Prussia, one of the "main characters" of Victoria 3, and want to complete the Slesvig Holstein Question.

To beat the mission you have to directly own at least 1 of the provinces 2, and Denmark much have no control anymore. To do this you then have to start a conquer state diplo play against one of the vassals (there is no transfer vassal diplo play). Since the other vassal for some reason is not automatically dragged into this war and you can't add war goals for subjects not in the diplo play, all you could do is to add the liberate subject war goal to at least remove the other vassal from Danish control. I would have preferred to take both states, but the game doesn't support this. That,s already the first issues with Vic3 and the game has barely begun.

I have Sweden, Russia and Austria on my side. I added Sweden since I can't ask mecklenburg (or any nation) for military access, and I can't force access as this is only possible when the country borders both war leaders. They unfortunately only border Holstein. So the only option was to go through Sweden. Another way this game is broken.

Neither Austria or Russia bothered to deploy any troops to the front, so while Denmark and GB where greatly outnumbered on paper, they managed to easily hold the strait and then eventually start pushing into Sweden. This now the third way this game is fundamentally broken.

View attachment 1298009

I ask what the point of all the changes from Victoria 2 is when it all works much worse. War, especially for the AI, was supposed to work better without micro. Instead my allies are worse than in Victoria 2. Units also don't consume from a stockpile anymore, so the AI can support massive armies with no real production of weaponry. They just take the +50% cost and thats it. Its probably cheaper overall than building that whole supply chain and wasting opportunity cost for the construction sectors.

When I look at this game's Steam page and update history I am shocked how they have spent so much time adding tons of gimmicky DLC features while basics like this still don't work.

And again, this is just what you meet a few years into the game as a major player.

I have played this scenario mutiple times now and I am not sure if this bad game play or not well played by player. Why do you even trigger such a massive war for the Holstein Question? Just improve relation with GB, wait for them to fight the Opium Wars, call in Sweden for Denmark humiliation and finish the "Quest". Three factions involved, war is done in a few weeks. You do not even need to mobilize your second big army, the 1. Armee is enough to run them down and it saves convoys.

 

[Spy01]

I have played this scenario mutiple times now and I am not sure if this bad game play or not well played by player. Why do you even trigger such a massive war for the Holstein Question? Just improve relation with GB, wait for them to fight the Opium Wars, call in Sweden for Denmark humiliation and finish the "Quest". Three factions involved, war is done in a few weeks. You do not even need to mobilize your second big army, the 1. Armee is enough to run them down and it saves convoys.

The allies isn't the issues, its military access and the AI randomly not doing anything.

 

[Pendables]

It is very annoying the hoops you have to jump through to put war goals on an enemy's subject. There needs to be a way to force them to join the play without putting a liberate/transfer subject war goal on them.

 

[marmot01]

My very second run of Vic3 was with Prussia, after a "test run" with Sweden (1836-1936). I remember taking Schleswig & Holstein but I only did it once I was already bordering them, because I was trying to follow the historical rate and sequence of expansion...

Not sure why would you shoot for these provinces as early as 1838, but I agree, the mechanics are currently too prohibitive to the point of being counterintuitive. You'd expect to be able to stomp over minor countries naturally when you need to cross their territory. Napoleon was doing it left and right, just about 30 years prior to the game starting date*.

"But its an economy simulator"

I'd argue it's not even fully that, but it's getting there

*-- ofc in reality you'd consult the other great powers for the things you want to enforce on minor nations, but that's a mechanic that we can only dream of for now.

 

[za3tarani]

i agree they should focus on fixing/reworking current mechanics rather than adding new mechanics (or even flavour). but unfortunately using dev time require some income aswell (so DLCs),

i would unironically pay for a "fixing current systems DLC"

 

[Rostan]

Yeah. On top of things that simply do not work, there are things that make no sense that ruin immersion so, so bad. Ottomans try to change government in Luca, 1837. Confederate States form in 1846 and remain permanent. They ally Haiti (you know, the state created by slaves) immediately. Morocco has its independence guaranteed by Russia by 1837. The USA almost always becomes a dictatorship by 1840 in my game. France switches governments a lot, I get it, it is the shtick, but maybe not thrice in 10 years? Philippines industrializes by 1860 to a level that its overlord Spain can only dream of.

 

[Delterius]

France switches governments a lot, I get it, it is the shtick, but maybe not thrice in 10 years?

I agree that the french government isn't collapsing as often as it should.

 

[FranklyJustNess]

Vic3 is far from perfect, and can have really painful moments of being broken, but you are being unfair.

There's no military access and it ruins the whole game, and should mean no DLC releases? Well, it literally is coming in the next patch. Trade is painful and should be changed? Well, precisely what is already announced.

Construction AI is bad? No, it's really not. That's because you can't give the AI control over your economy. There is no button, that says "I want my construction queue to be controlled by an AI like in any AI country I play against". You either click a super simplistic "expand when cash reserve is full", which can be useful for some buildings, like maybe a paper mill, where you have your administration - it's a very specific use tool, that gives you some automation, or you watch the private queue, which is controlled by your investor pops, and they literally do not care about how your economy is working, they don't want to modernize your economy or look into future PMs or try to create self sufficient construction goods economy - they just care about profit, and build stuff that gives them the best return... which is precisely what they should be doing.

There's a lot of micro with large countries? Not really... since you can generally allow yourself playing less optimally, when you are big and rich, there's no such need to play perfectly, and that offsets having more things to think about. Really it's only the initial survey of your economy, states and land, and local goods that are difficult and "micro" heavy.

You don't feel rewarded for playing well? Well I do. It's probably subjective and depends on what you are looking at.

 

[Mr.Chappy]

I just don't understand how it is still so bad after nearly 3 years.

I haven't played since September last year, but decided to come back and try it out again in the last 2 weeks and have managed to put another 60 or so hours in. EVERY game I've played has had some sort of awful jankyness in it.

Playing as Cuba I decide to get some African land. Try take Dahomey as a protectorate, Oyo and Benin come in on their side so I decide to take their lands as well. Naval invade Dahomey and it all goes swimmingly, so clearly my army will just march East and take Oyo and Benin? No, of course not. They get back on a boat to Cuba, then go straight back to Africa to Naval invade(!?) Oyo. This sort of rubbish seems to happen alot but hey, at least they didn't teleport, so game is improving!

Played a game as Central America, firstly the disillusion event auto completes on game start, so they've messed something up somewhere. Secondly it turns out if you make a navy, they are all stationed in the "Central American HQ" which is in the Caribbean. There is no way to station a fleet on the west coast without having them just sit in the ocean? I was so confused by this that I even posted about it on here as I thought I must be being stupid as there is no way that is the case. It is the case so I just gave up on that game altogether.

"But its an economy simulator"

Every time I read this I become slightly more unhinged. Yes the 19th century was a time of amazing advances in diplomacy and economic cooperation, but people seem to being willingly forgetting that all of that was backed by the threat of violence and the means to inflict it. The 19th Century isn't some strange imperial hugbox. Do people think that China's unequal treaties were the result of just amazing diplo? No, they agreed because if they didn't they were going to get curb stomped, again.

The devs need to have a serious discussion about this game. I'm getting really sick of the head burying when it comes to war. The system doesn't work, has never worked and frankly after all this time I don't ever see it working.

 

[AlexNereča]

Do people think that China's unequal treaties were the result of just amazing diplo? No, they agreed because if they didn't they were going to get curb stomped, again.

Guess you'll be prepared for some sort of critique when 1.9 rolls out with its diplomatic treaties that the devs have confirmes will encompass the unequal treaties of the period. Plus forcing diplomatic treaties onto a country will replace some of the wargoal implementation.

 

[Mr.Chappy]

Guess you'll be prepared for some sort of critique when 1.9 rolls out with its diplomatic treaties that the devs have confirmes will encompass the unequal treaties of the period. Plus forcing diplomatic treaties onto a country will replace some of the wargoal implementation.

I don't think you actually read what I post. It has nothing to do with forcing unequal treaties and everything to do with the fact that they're backed by military force. War is intrinsically linked to diplomacy and economy in this era and the fact it doesn't work seemingly because "It's an economy simulator" isn't a good enough reason when they're so deeply linked.

And even after 1.9, the war system will still be a mess as we are seemingly trying to get JFK a paracetamol for his head wound. We can't keep trying to patch a broken system.

 

[AlexNereča]

everything to do with the fact that they're backed by military force

I don't think you actually read what I posted. I said diplomatic treaties will replace (and I believe will add to) some wargoals you set in the diplomatic play.

The implication is if you're strong enough they will use the back down mechanic in exactly the manner that you said:

they agreed because if they didn't they were going to get curb stomped, again

 

[Mr.Chappy]

I don't think you actually read what I posted. I said diplomatic treaties will replace (and I believe will add to) some wargoals you set in the diplomatic play.

The implication is if you're strong enough they will use the back down mechanic in exactly the manner that you said:

But if they don't accept, you're dragged into a war with the awful mechanics! Which is what this thread is about. The unbearing jankyness of the war system and how they need to do something about it, like focusing dev time to it. I don't even want moveable stacks, I just want something else. Within the confines of the system they have now I really struggle to come up with solutions, which is clearly the same as the devs as they're still fighting this god awful system.

I happen to agree with OPB about this, it seems we aren't getting ANY major changes to the war system this year. Which in my opinion (and many others if even positive steam reviews are to go by) isn't good enough. The war system is what stops this game getting a decent player count and the unhinged delusion from a minority of people saying "it'll get better, they're going to improve" after nearly 3 years is frankly laughable.

I commend them for taking a stab at something new, but it just doesn't work. Even in the DD for the military improvements they say they can't iron out all the edge cases meaning this awful jank is staying with us for the foreseeable future.

I stopped playing for half a year. Came back and am still frustrated in the same way. Something isn't working right.

 

[AlexNereča]

But if they don't accept, you're dragged into a war with the awful mechanics!

Okay

But then that boils down to a criticism of game balance regarding whether the opponent will accept the diplomatic demand.

If you can't make an informed decision about whether making a demand will result in a diplomatic play and that they will not back down after your military strength becomes clear, that's a very good criticism of the design and gamestate.

I don't even want moveable stacks, I just want something else.

Well that's interesting.
But it's become clear to me there are two sides of the same coin (or perhaps 'three') regarding absolutist criticism of either this game's or its predecessor's warfare system, which ends up making a bit awkward for me to try to engage with the exact same 'unchanging' opening arguments in every single discussion on the topic.

they say they can't iron out all the edge cases meaning this awful jank

well not in 1.9, however...

We do indeed plan to do more military QoL and polish in the second half of the year. We want tp ensure the mechanics we have are in the best possible shape before we make any major additions to them.

 

[kingsword]

The really hilarious part of "but it's not about war" defense is that the AI 100% plays the game like a map painter. Just do some switch countries in midgame and it's:

- 50% of the construction queue is empty
- 50% of the rest is building barracks (obviously rebuilding the ones it deleted last year)

And it's like 20/40. If 1.9 again cannot solve this through auto-trade permeating cheaper building materials through the world, I'll definitively lose hope about this game. Oh who am I kidding, I bet AI won't build trade centers so even if you supplied mass iron etc cheap to the world, they won't be able to buy it. Or they'll buy opium with their trade capacity I bet. Not holding my breath about AI's uncanny resolve to choose the wrong option out of myriad choices in this game.

 

[AlexNereča]

I bet AI won't build trade centers so even if you supplied mass iron etc cheap to the world

Private Investment is expected to do this so unless they balls that up it shouldn't be a problem in that specific regard if country AIs make stupid construction decisions

Or they'll buy opium with their trade capacity I bet.

Well I suppose this might happen, though outside the usual suspects with addictions we'll have to see how autonomous trade by the private buildings will deal with intoxicant imports.