Next mechanics update should have crisis' and ww1

[brantodb01]

Enough national gardening, at the end of my play through i want to ramp up the pressure and see if my garden turns to ash before my neighbours.
Vic3 has a perfect historical endgame crisis to build up for and act as a final test, the fact we still don't have it is a crime.

Crisis' can also work throughout the course of the game to create limited great power conflicts, especially if you can create, as historical, treaties of non intervention.
Historical crisis can spawn and help guide some historical and ahistorical outcomes. Such as the oriental crisis, the boxer rebellion, the first Schleswig war and the Crimean war.

 

[Kyoumen]

Doing WW1 before the war system is in a stable place that everyone but the professional complainers can be reasonably happy with is just a recipe for the forums (and evrrywhere else) to be filled with drama and pointless rehashes of arguments that have been going on for three years.

And I've never had enough national gardening.

 

[brantodb01]

Doing WW1 before the war system is in a stable place that everyone but the professional complainers can be reasonably happy with is just a recipe for the forums (and evrrywhere else) to be filled with drama and pointless rehashes of arguments that have been going on for three years.

And I've never had enough national gardening.

I agree a better war system would be nice but personally I feel vic 3 is never going to satisfy that for me. However i would love to still play with what we have. Additionally crisis and ww1 are political and economic wars on top of military ones.

And gardening *is* fun but i want it to mean something and have it be tested. It's all build up, with no climax. I have just built the warwolf, now get back in that castle and let me use it on you

 

[FranklyJustNess]

Doing WW1 before the war system is in a stable place that everyone but the professional complainers can be reasonably happy with is just a recipe for the forums (and evrrywhere else) to be filled with drama and pointless rehashes of arguments that have been going on for three years.

And I've never had enough national gardening.

I don't think it's true. A world war is more of a modified diplomatic play, than a modified war. Look at Vic2, where a Great War would get triggered when there was a war with at least 2 Great Powers on each side, after the concept was "researched" (1890s), and as a result it would add a dismantling wargoal, and all infamy generation was cut to 1/3. In other words, it didn't actually change the conflict itself at all.

I'd want to see the game unlock more and more wargoals as the game goes on, especially including a relatively cheap "hand control over a strategic region in Africa".

Great War should just be something that happens in later part of the game, and mostly resolves the issue, that you can spend nearly all your movements on inviting allies, and so the World War starts and it's over a few tiny things, because nobody could afford more. It should give extra moves and have massively decreased infamy generation.

As OP mentions, it's quite good for Victoria to have a period when you can test your country against others, even if it's not a war game, and in current Vic3 it just never comes.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

The problem with the current war system is that every war begins with a "crisis", i.e. a diplomatic play. On the one hand, yes, I understand that wars rarely begin over complete surprise by one side (Pearl Harbour being the exception to the rule), so you can interpret crisis being stuff like heightened tensions at the border.
Heck, I would love if we could have some mechanism for early mobilized troops engage in some sort of border skirmish that could accelerate/affect the diplomatic play.

But being warned someone might declare war on you could even be by being warned about them starting mobilization (and given the cost of them, you would rarely have a completely mobilized army through 100 years of gameplay unless it's a really small army).
My argument here is that some of the time, we shouldn't need to have a diplomatic play being started so neutral countries could decide to join a war, either side should be able to call their allies, guarantors, etc... (and refusing the call should give GREAT INFAMY besides the opinion malus) and then other countries could join later.
I mean, it's not like countries never joined wars well after they had been ongoing for years, anyway.

I understand from a game mechanic perspective why it was made this way, way back when the game was first announced and we were going through the dev diaries presenting the game but I never liked it anyway and always thought this mechanic too gamey and clunky.

 

[Jimboy93]

I think it would be much more compelling if the game featured a mechanic that allowed such crises to emerge organically, rather than relying on predetermined events.

For example, imagine France seeks to occupy the Rhineland. Prussia resists and appeals to Britain for support. In turn, Russia might back France in the hope of capturing territories such as Silesia. Austria could then side with Prussia, aiming to annex Russian lands.

I believe it would be far more engaging if the AI could generate such scenarios naturally.

A conflict like this could be classified as a special kind of war. One that allows for additional war goals to be added and, if lost, could result in the losing side suffering significant territorial losses and being forced to pay substantial reparations. That, at least, would be my approach.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

that kind of stuff is harder to program, BUT, maybe if you start a war against someone already at war you can have the chance of joining the existing war… it’s the other stupid thing about current war system as a co-belligerent can only have one war goal at a time if they aren’t the initiator/target of the diplomatic play.

 

[NATOaster]

Main thing about any mechanics I want is the ability to replicate real life events. WW1 especially but my main big diplomatic want is the Berlin Conference, and Conferences in general. There's already 2 "conference" JEs in the game with the Treaty of London and the Pamir Delimitation, and they're both interesting but also wildly unsuited to being a JE and need their own interface.

With conferences, the main things I want to replicate are the Post WW1 treaties (that created new states out of several different countries i.e. Poland getting Galicia from AH and the rest from Germany and its subjects), the Scramble for Africa (obvious one), and also conferences regarding China.

 

[Flavour B]

1. Every war in Vic 3 is a total war as great powers are more than willing to massacre each others population for a regime change in Congo. There needs to some way to differentiate the scale of conflicts before we can get any sort of great war crisis. Like give some nasty penalties for using overwhelming force/resources on miniscule conflict in order to punish players/AI for going all dumbojet because they want to change regime in half of Oldenburg.

2. Warfare is barely functional, incredibly boring, brainless and just sucky in every possible way (objectively speaking). Devs absolutely need to make it at least somewhat engaging before introducing any sort of mechanic that would force players into state of prolonged conflcit.