The game series is not a pure economic simulation. The game has to be reasonably convincing on a strict level when it comes to war. After a little shouting, they'll just throw the game in the corner. And in the event of the failure of the mechanics of war, they cannot be shaken off with the argument that the game is not about war. There are still a lot of people who just wait and see. But it is not as if we have already presented an absolutely convincing concept. In fact, I really enjoy playing domestic politics. Nations start a war with 100 war support, and it will generally be reduced each week by an ‘exhaustion’ factor that is based on a number of factors, including: A base decay rate of -0.25.-1 for every 10 of occupation.-2 if the enemy controls 100 of their war goals, pro-rata reduced down to 0 for 0 of war goals controlled. I am relatively neutral about the matter. Think of these as formal threats on a global stage in which you put your military might up against another nation, everyone with an interest in the region knows about it, and they can interfere at will. Instead, you must make a Diplomatic Play. If Reconstruction follows much the same course. In Victoria 3, it is not possible to declare war outright. If the conflict resolves in much the same way/same scope and time. If the foreign powers react much as they would have during the conflict and potentially intervene or offer trade support, etc. Here an area is being revised which is important to a large number of people. If the military outcome of that conflict follows the natural size and strength of the two sides. It's not as if someone came into "the sims" forum and complained about the lack of war. So the title, the new dev diary just make it clear, vic 3 wasn't designed for war, war is just a secondary mechanic they didn't wanted to (or couldn't) eliminate from the game, so they copy pasted geopilitik with hoi3 battle interface, i am not mad, i see future in the system, but, making war this simplified is disastrous, they said they wanted to reduce micro but, really is that a good think? this system with micro would be the ultimate warfare system, fronts is a great idea, but having fronts this simplified is so bad.īut, well, is just time to swallow it, war isn't going to be the fun part of this game(i got fun in the micro fest that vic 2 was, the war system wasnt perfect, but satisfactory, like, evaporating huge armies, just because they attacked u in a mountain), the randomization of fronts, i like that, being your general the one deciding where to advance and how, is like real life and i like it, but the atrocious number of fronts, like 1 giant front on the russian front is so devastating for me, encirclements are gone, this system cant simulate it, i am just, sad and happy, i mean, its good to micro a society and his industry, but if i want to do that i would go to democracy 4, or anno, if you going to make GRAND STRATEGY GAMES you should at least don't think in making micro less painfully, but more manageable, in vic 3 they just decided to erase the majority of it, making the GRAND, go to KIND OF STRATEGY GAME, i just hope they expand it, or something.Ĭlick to expand.This is not the first game in the series, it is in a certain tradition. In Victoria 3 can be ended in a couple of ways.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |