You know I am!

Ok paradox, im gonna say it: RELEASE THE GAME THIS WEEKEND PLZ, IT HAS BEEN SO MANY YEARS WAITING FOR THIS, THIS GAME LOOKS SO GOOD Edit: Yes, the caps lock means i was screaming, im screaming for this game, are you happy paradox?

i am ! but why releasing it on tuesday??? It would be much nicer if it released on a saturday

​@@gameswithkobralo2520 Because they always release Grand Strategy Games during the early week (Monday or Tuesday) just in case a major patch is needed immediately, which is almost always the case. The one time they didnt release it at the start of the week was Imperator Rome, which had an atrocious launch and launch weekend. Things do get past QA that a lot of players might discover suddenly on day 1. Additionally, barely anybody is in the office anyway on Saturdays in Sweden. On the bright side, for you and the other guy if you can only play on weekends, look at it this way: by the time you play next weekend, chances are many major launch bugs may have been ironed out already.

@@alittlesouthofsanity see above

Agreed. I wanna see my boys go from muskets and top hats to bolt actions and brodie helmets

Same here

no doubt they will do that, if not at lunch maybe later, the game as animations with forts shootings t each other i think? but seeing soldiers, trenches etc.. would be great, they might make a dlc for that i guess. If not then maybe Mods will do it.

@@user-cd4ms6cf8l Its called a shako

​@@DrShocktopus didnt the prussians use... uh... prusian blue?

thats what i was wondering tooo...i feel like the current naval orders are not very well implemented

My understanding is a large enough navy set to “attack convoys” would prevent trade from happening providing the function of a blockade. Not sure what diplomatically is available to let other countries know “if you trade with them I’ll be extra angry.”

I'm guessing a blockade will be automatically implemented if you successfully "patrol coast" around all coastline the enemy nation has.

dont worry, you will be able to buy it in the nezt DLC

@@AndreLuis-gw5ox And it will be only 29,,99 € gosh im so exited!

I think it'd be distracting seeing a bunch of horses riding around and muskets firing. I don't need to see all that if I'm the king. Just give me reports and let me know when you mash the guys or if we have to surrender and cede a province or something.

@@snowbear163 I really want to see those gorgeous 19th century military uniforms though. Imagine prussian blue, british red and austrian white displayed with Vicky 3s beautiful graphics.

@@helmuthvonmoltke5518 a good compromise for both requests: make it an option

@@snowbear163 yes yes, average paradox game player can only focus on 2 things

@@helmuthvonmoltke5518 Don´t forget russian green

I'm trying to figure out if they're making some kind of political statement or if they really think that people don't want a warfare system

Many people don't want hoi 4 level micromanaging

Insha'allah, we will have three hundred dollars worth of DLC!

@@JackTHall-ji1qb okay lol could've done something similar to vic 2 then...

@@JackTHall-ji1qb Not all of us are trash at Paradox games like you probably are , we like some micro management

?

paradox is a profit company, no way they will release hoi5 in the next 10 years as long as they can squeeze out all the money hoi4 can produce.

Agreed. I've stayed away from a lot of Vicy 3 stuff to avoid the hype train, but decided to watch this video before buying and I've lost most of my motivation to buy it. What's the point a grand strategy war game if the war gaming part of it is inferior to its 12 year old predecessor.

@@warmongerphoenix476 well, maybe it has to do with the fact that Vicky 3 is not, in fact, a grand strategy war game

@@renatlottiepilled IT IS a grand strategy game

@@renatlottiepilled What would you call a game focused around waring with anyone who standing in your way to build a Imperialist Colonial Empire then? I know what I would call it. A Grand Strategy War game.

@@renatlottiepilled it is.

Not in 1836. The Rhineland became an industrial center during the course of this game

​@@Flash4ML I think The Rhineland and Westphalia was rich regions even in 1836. I read somewhere that regions in Pomeranian and Berlin suffered massive casualties in the 30 years war, and stayed poor for a long time. They would be comparable if not richer than Konigsberg and Silesia.

Except, I would do the opposite, right? So every region would be harmed a little, but it´s not that hard to rebuild after the war?

@@tsehoyin2 rhineland became rich probably near the brothers war. Austria refused rhineland for Venice area in the vienna system. So you can guess how under develıped it was with its resources

Do as she says not as she does

Personally, I think using HOI4's battleplan system, wit some tweaks, and without being able to control individual units manually would have been amazing.

@@andrewdowell2663 but if you do that then it will be very cumbersome to run your economy and nation. It works in HOI4 because you're only focusing on the military. But when you have to focus on everything it will be too much. Sounds like people want to play a HOI4 mod set in the 1800s more than anything. If that's the case, there are options available last I checked.

@@snowbear163 but you can’t say that this is an particularly interesting way to use the military it’s bare-bones. Attack, standby and defence. I don’t think you can blame people for wanting more for content when you’re paying full price

@@snowbear163 it might be cumbersome for a smooth-brain

@@andrewdowell2663 they will sell a 20$ must have dlc addresing the war system thats why its so bad now.

shame more people don't feel this way.

Wont happen, Pdx has never released a dlc or update that changes warfare mechanics. They are already trying to dumb down Stellaris warfare so.

EU4 art of war?

@@Lucifer1247 lol what was Art of War then?

@@Lucifer1247 lmao how many pdx games do you play...

That's what this was remining me of. You hit the nail on the head with "reminds me of a basic mobile game". It's really disappointing and I'm not sure if I even want to buy the game anymore.

unlike eu4 and hoi4 this game focuses much on economics and trade rather than warfare and colonization. in hoi4, for example, the only form of economy is civilian factories, infrastructure and a oversimplified trade mechanic which is all required for your war machine.

Pretty sure Russia still does that in modern times 💀

@@skulli7378 Plenty countries still do, enforced conscription isn't privy to totalitarian dictatorships. Not to defend Russia of course, I'm sure their enforcement is much more rigorous then say, Switzerland

@@Flash4ML the difference is that Russia is deliberately targeting minorities in a form of discrimination

For Victoria 2 there's a war analyser program, it loads up a save and looks at deaths both in individual battles and the war overall

You will be able to see that

U could do that with war analyzer

Man your standards are low, unfortunately the prices won't be.

Ah yes, everyone loved having to boot up war analyzer and load up your save file. Having this feature built into the game by default is surely a massive downgrade.

BASED

EU4 has the worst warfare system

@@noname_758 paradox will sell you a warfare dlc don’t worry

Hoi4 navy's not that bad

@@mecsi2573 Yes it is

I assume being in foreign territory adds more attrition. Whats the 20% reprisents is the attrition added from not being on standby

Doesn't matter if you die of Typhus at home or abroad.

there migt a bonus for being in your own territory, however I assume you can also defend a front where you have occupied enemy territory.

@@rzu1474 At home you will most likely have physicians and your healthcare system + you know where to forage and take refuge. Attrition isn't just dying of illness, but everything besides actual combat casulties. So yes, you should take less attrition in your homeland.

Because being at home would still be heavy in attrition. Disease still spreads even if you are at home. It prolly should be more deep and nuanced in the future, but it makes sense for now. That game isn't quiet that circumstantial yet. Like a french army fighting in Paris will strong supply lines? Probably not a lot of attrition. But the French army sitting in the trenches within their border? HORRIBLE attrition even if they are at home. It all depends and the game isn't quite that nuanced yet.

That's what players actually want, or just the Victoria 2 system, but sadly Paradox has neglected it totally.

100% agree. I’m okay with the old Vicky 2 or EU4 system of micromanaging stacks but I’m also okay with a fleshed out front lines system like HOI4. I don’t understand why they have gone this route except that they have professed that war is not meant to be a rewarding gameplay mechanic in Vicky 3 and it’s undesirable at best as a last resort to reach diplomatic play goals. So I’m thinking that the devs wanted us to hate the system or at least not enjoy it because we aren’t supposed to be using warfare as a rewarding game mechanic. Hopefully they will roll out some big war update/DLC in the near future.

@@crowneproductions9908 I mean I definitely prefer this over the Vic 2/EU4 style of cancer warfare. Still more control would be appreciated

​@@cassu6 skill issue

@@crowneproductions9908 The thing is that you're approaching Vicky's warfare from your experience with other PDX titles. But that's not how the devs see it. Victoria is not about war like HoI4 or painting maps like EU4, it's all about politics and economics in a rapidly changing modern era. Vicky II felt weird; warfare was bland, superficial, and more often than not annoying. You had to micromanage your army stacks like in EU, but whereas that's fine for EU it really didn't make sense that armies were these largely static entities that were in no way as complex as building industries, managing your colonies, changing your government, etc. Perhaps it could have worked with the deeper mechanics of HoI4, but then Victoria would be all about war which would be even worse. After all, as Clausewitz said, war is diplomacy by other means - and that's exactly what Vicky 3's warfare mechanics seem to do. I mean, we still have to manage all the build-up towards and logistics behind war - it's not like war is now this abstract affair like it is in EU4.

Yeah this feels really dumbed down to a level where you don't have any influence in making power plays, it's just click a button and hope your stats are good enough to push.

that's the boat I'm in, personally, I think using HOI4's battleplan system, wit some tweaks, and without being able to control individual units manually would have been amazing.

The head of state shouldn't be involved at the operational level in the military. The king shouldn't be telling generals how to maneuver and how to break fronts. The military decides that. In WW1 the Czar kept trying to tell the military what to do and things didn't go very well. If this is a type of depiction of reality then you tell the military what your goals are they come up with the plans to make that happen.

@@snowbear163 i mean the head of state isnt also operationally involved in building every factory in every state, it’s delegated to state officials and economists in real life. but GSGs are games that operate like board games, you control aspects of certain game features regardless of how much of a simulation they are in near omnipotent-level. If we apply that logic then you also shouldnt be seeing anything globally from a bird’s eye view because the head of state didnt have that ability irl

also it’s merely from an instructional level. like for example, during the ACW Licoln laid out clear instructions for his generals to capture Richmond quickly, but his timid and incompetent generals didnt do that. Atleast give the player the more options to instruct the AI on what it should, not just almost a binary go attack or defend system it has now

"As long as you have better tech and economy, there is now way you lose with this system" Is that not exactly how war works?

@@puernatura8998 No, it literally isn't. 1st Boer War is a war in this period which clearly counters that narrative. Same with the 1st Balkan War.

Terrain modifiers mainly just like in most pdx games. With this system I guess you can put a general as idle on a front and let the enemy advance and take attrition until they reach a very good and defencible terrain for you. Then you put that general on defence and let the enemy grind away their troops if they want. That is in pure warfare mechanics without any diplomacy involved i.e. having a strong ally, receiving support and all other stuff from stronger nations etc. This is kinda equivalent to real wars where the main cause of a stronger nation losing to a much weaker nations is because of strong defencible terrain and attrition.

@@puernatura8998 Absolutely not, even in more recent wars like Vietnam, tech and economy migh be deemed almost useless against an enemy that knows how to use their limited resources in their favor.

This is my concern about the seeming lack of opportunities for micromanaging. It’s nice being able to use maneuver and position to pocket or cut off forces and whittle down a numerically larger one

Ouch, I can see a problem there... more than 10x casualties of the actual wars

Just bad micro 😔

Soviet style invasion

@@123mrmaynard123 I think I remember hearing that one of the last things they are working on fixing before release was the fact that casualties are currently way too high.

@@razortheonethelight7303 i bet you $10 it will be like that in the release build

"Also, I hope the war support mechanic isn't like Stellaris, where you can be at war ahd have litterally nothing happening to your pops or country and for some reason still have war exhaustion (or, in this case, war support) decrease." you predicted it my guy

@@benjaminpolitics yep

Yeah, it definitely added a feeling of place and time, for sure.

I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if it's possible to mod combat back into the game

Why a DLC? Every prior game had it for free. Don't let them take this away and lock it behind a paywall.

Denmark stronk

Could be from an old build. Could be that Prussia is hurling skirmish conscripts at a professional army with trench soldiers supported by artillery across a narrow front.

Russia moment

​@@Proletrolliat Stereotypes moment

Console command shenanigans I bet.

like nails on a chalkboard

To be fair, I think it's been designed this way so after a lot of playtesting by ourselves after release they can sell us a DLC addressing all of this.

Also, don't get me wrong. It's refreshing to see a new warfare system and I think it has a lot of potential. However, PDX really needs to address the discontent among its core playerbase. Let's face it, GSG is still a niche genre, and most people who buy PDX games do it because of the warfare mechanics. I'm personally eager to see all the Economy and Politics mechanics in motion, but I would seriously recommend PDX to address the elephant in the room. It's as simple as, for example, adding the option of being able to choose which provinces or states your generals will prioritize when advancing. And tbh, considering how divided the PDX community is around this, I think it should be a free feature on a following patch after release. If they want they can sell more warfare control options later on as a DLC, but I think this is essential in order to avoid the game flopping like Imperator.

@@argon65 I think it is great that they made a concious yet controversial artistic decision to allow for a different focus in this series. GSG might be a niche genre. But Paradox is its own biggest enemy in that niche if they continue to make too similar games. I would have not preordered V3 if it would have been another "raise your armies to conquer everything"-title. I already own 4 of those from Paradox.

@@argon65 i think they need to stick to their guns and flesh out the systems this is designed for. The "I want war" crowd is loud but I don't think it's that large. There is already HOI4 and Stellaris for people who just want a war simulator. I'm excited we get an economic simulator where we do deals, and diplomacy, and run a nation. I like the approach to war as in it's a means to an end, you tell your generals the war aims and then they make it all happen operationally. Not my job to tell units where to move or what tactics to use.

@@Chiungalla79 this. Too many people want "HOI4 but in the 1800s." If that's the case they can download a mod. Lots of people get disappointed with CK3 because they play it like a paint-the-map simulator which it's not. What people are really wanting is war simulators through various times in history. And the answer to that is just more HOI4 mods. I'm here for the diplomacy, the deals, the economics, the trade. War is a means to an end. I don't need to tell my horses where to go. That's what I pay the military for is to figure all that out for me.

Combat dlc

They will flesh out the warfare mechanics later.

Everyone wanted better. Literally nobody wanted the system

@@barrythe4th you're probably right and it makes me sick. It should be in the base game

Could be. I prefer it to be simplistic and a good foundation for future development then a poor revamp of what we already know though, I think even if it's lackluster on release, it's definitely a step in the right direction

@@Flash4ML Yeah now they make us buy dlc in order to fix something that should've been working at launch , definitely a step in the right direction.

@@MuazzamKhan786 You must be new here if you're seriously complaining about their DLC policy

Paradox's dlc thing is shit but I personally just wanna play a different kind of game. I have never been a fan of the micro wars; you are and there are already a lot of games that accommodate for you so.

@@Phantomz. You do realize that in a game like Victoria 2 you can just play a country and not go to war, building tall instead? That would still be an option in Victoria 3, but I prefer a _complete_ gameplay experience.

@@Zorro9129 Yeah and then you'd never get to have wars? This is infinitely better than the cancer that Vic 2 combat was. That was the deal breaker for me in that game.

@@cassu6 If you want to wage wars pressing three buttons, there are plenty of mobile games filling that niche. Grand-strategy is expressly the opposite of that.

LOL, warfare totally sucked in Vic 2.

No Animations :DDD You can't make this up.

The art of pushing stop and go - Sun Tzu

cara does a terrible jov

@Boon2000 If you want a war game play Hoi4, this isn't the game for you

@Boon2000 play end of a new beginning, a hoi4 mod, you will love it

​@@Flash4ML a strategy game without strategy is made for who then? The brainless?

@@Flash4ML cope. Pdx games always have war to a small degree. Stellaris is more complex than this. Is stellaris a war game? No. Its just one of 10 different components that make it fun. You know. The reason we play games.

@@monarchtherapsidsinostran9125 Lol how is that cope? I agree that Paradox games always have some form of war, is this game any different? The majority of people in the comment section are acting like warfare should be one of the main focuses of the game, which it isn't and shouldn't be.

Different game , same shit. Guess they know casuals will buy their games no matter what since they don't have half a brain.

Like planes they were invented after game enddate. Sorry.

That would be cool, hopefully that improves over time

I think bringing back the war plans from Vic 2 and allowing you to customize the equipment of your army would be a good way to allow for player interaction in wars. Also allowing us to set the general tactics of our Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery would be good, like massed artillery, skirmishing cav and loose order infantry. That way while you don’t have a hand in what your armies do on the front you do set the general school of thought for your generals and armies.

I agree. I think they cut down on the content for war and focuses on diplo and econ because of time constraints

@@romanboi3115 they literally said that taking out the old war system and implementing this system was perhaps the hardest and most time consuming aspect of development so I have to believe that the system we’re getting is not fully developed.

@@iterationfackshet1990 When replacing something, you need to first figure out what you are gonna replace it with. So that is where 75% of the time and energy went into, developing a replacement idea. Now they better add onto it to give me a little more control on what the army does. Giving some objectives would be nice, but this system will work for now.

And what about Cara?

@@Psycho250785 What about Cara?

@@Psycho250785 cara is the "you" in that comment ;)

@@DidamDFP Yup. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough. I know it's not her channel.

cara can go to hell and cook for us

Royal Court was pretty decent.

@@jamesli2545 It was okay, but I found it pretty lacking for the price they were asking.

Oh my gosh. Are you seriously going to go jump ships and join Total War?

@@maxs.5112 Why not? It's basically the same type of map but its actually more accurate and lets you do battles, atleast they make consistent DLCS

Those tactics are implemented by technologies

@Filolog Yeah trenchfoot and starvation didnt give a shit if you were attacking or defending lol.

I am not against attrition. But if you have good supplies and logistics (your infrastructure etc) . You should likely not get the same attrition as if you were fighting in swamps. Also, I see no indication that terrain or season affecting attrition.

wait thats so dumb, why is there no way to build forts????????????? well bound to be added by dlc lol

It works like the barracks. Each Naval Base building level gives one "flotilla" and the production methods determine what exact ships are in said flotilla and therefore their stats and upkeep cost. Flotilla are then assigned to Admirals who you then order to do things in naval zones, much like how battalions are assigned to Generals who are then assigned to fronts

@@Indignation211 alright cool, thanks for the reply!

If that’s the case I’d go back to Vic2. Warfare seems quite lacklustre in this game

@@finn4012 or go to HOI4 where they already do this. Seems a lot of people want HOI4 just in the 1800s. They can just play a mod.

@@snowbear163 how time is setup in hoi4 doesn't work in this sense

@@snowbear163 I would be fine with the addition of small visible units on the map. I really want those beautiful 19th century military uniforms displayed in all their glory. Hopefully they will add something cosmetic later on.

@@helmuthvonmoltke5518 Im 100% sure that military is gonna get the attention it needs soon. If I could tell my army to secure certain regions first and had all the little men running around I would say the system is good to go. But I think they cut its dev time down to focus on politics and economics.

Hope you roll some good combat modifiers in your Vic3 battles there buddy

@@SpudgunOfficial unfortunately I learned how awesome RNG was from this new "warfare" mechanic so I rolled a d20 to see if I was gonna buy the game but I rolled a 1.

prob a guy turned girl

"girl"

victoria is not a war game. It's focused on economics, include the economics of war. More depth to the warfare system would come in the way of more deep supply lines or ways to use your army to disrupt their economy, not micro control of units

They did say they want to add more commands/options for the player, but I don't think that'd come anytime soon unfortunately

@@magica3526 making the game more complex in areas other than war does not require you to dumb down and make war boring. This is not a good argument. The economy looks amazing, but war doesn't look very engaging. Making the economy engaging shouldn't come at the cost of making war boring. Why can you not have both? Edit: and he's asking for more options, not micro control. For example, spearhead lines from HoI4 would be cool, so you can recreate things like sherman's March to the sea

@@magica3526 bro pls its not a wargame it just takes place in a time where there was an enormous world war alongside many many small conflicts

@@senseishu937 at least being able to plan your front like in Vic 2 would be good, adding war plans back could be a good way to add more player control while not having a ton of micro. Also allowing us to see our standing professional armies during peace would be good as well.

it means they'll be hanging out at HQ without a general in command of their movements.

It seems like a "no attrition but available for defense" mode.

@@TacticusPrime Which seems contradictory.

@@leoh3616 less likely to contract typhus in the barracks than out in the field, I guess

also 6:07 prussia has 100k casualties just by mobilising thats just ridiculous

Not yet anyway it seems. Looks easy enough to implement

@@triglos5413 probably deserting since they don't feel like fighting.

Neither does the ai, plus its down to dicerolls 80% of the time anyway

I hope

Hopefully they go back to a more traditional skill based army building style like in Vic2 this is simply so the fucking game can launch on console

@@Princeofbelka "Skilled Based" You mean meta abuse and hypercheese

@@romanboi3115 yea skill based you have to get good to cheese

@@Princeofbelka Its not skill if its legally cheating

They can buffer a lack of ammo to a degree, but that will make ammo prices explode so you'd want to avoid that But they will never demote on their own, they will get debuffs like industries if the lack is to strong

From what ive seen if you dont have enough goods for a building (in this case guns) the price will raise fast. At +75% cost over the normal value the building where the shortage is will get massive debuffs, in this case the barracks (and next the soldiers), and you will also go broke

From what could be seen in the dev streams, the penalty for not getting enough military goods has two elements. One part is a debuff to combat ability that seems to scale with the length and magnitude of the shortage. The other is that your Barracks will not be able "produce" reinforcements to battalions that have been lost or damaged by combat and attrition, they'll produce some reinforcements, more slowly, if you can supply some of their demand for each required input, but if you completely lack a source of ammunition, then reinforcement will completely stop and your army will rather quickly die to attrition and combat damage unless you can push to victory before it runs out of strength. Downgrading to fix a shortage like that needs to be done manually, and, like upgrading, inflicts a -50% penalty to all stats of the combat units. That penalty gradually decreases to 0 over a six-month period, assuming no further equipment changes. It's also worth keeping in mind that your military does not need to be completely uniform across the whole nation: you can individually set certain Barracks to use Skirmish Infantry, while others remain Line Infantry. If you can't supply enough ammunition to make your whole military use the best troop types, it might be a good idea to only have the troops recruited at the capital using the latest technology.

Your attack and defense stats in a battle get affected

I'm guessing insufficient pay means you lose the war faster via war exhaustion. If bad enough maybe it affects battles too through desertion and the like. I'd hope lack of ammo means a debuff

No

Bro it's not possible to plan with this system. Just click the go button an roll your dice

Probably down the road, looks simple enough to implement with these core mechanics

@@SpudgunOfficial Yo what's up my man

@@SpudgunOfficial I mean you can get an approximate. Assign most of your generals and battalions to the Frech border, then violate Belgian soverenty, while having another force on the Russia border with a defend order to try and hold there while hoping the French attack will prove decisive and you can then redeploy those armies.

Jesus christ. The warfare is so bad

Not bad as it is but i doubt there will be a major revamp of this mechanic

@@MrJernej33 They could have done a much better job than just adding three buttons on a general on what to do at the front? I understand that the game is a pop/economy game... But warfare is so crucial at this time period cause of the many changes to the type of warfare in the 1800s... This warfare mechanic they have done is too simplistic in my opinion. It will have to be revamped as they did in Imperator.

victoria is not a war game

@@magica3526 it is a wargame, with indepth economy

He*

@@delightfulinsanity3622 Wait. What?

@@delightfulinsanity3622 LMFAO

@@delightfulinsanity3622 They/Them*

but that would require micro 🤡

@@Sinaeb Some micro isn’t the end of the world now is it?

@@dima9171 according to the shills, yes.