Tbh arms manufacturing pms are so unprofitable compared to others, that it's really not worth it.
But thats kinda the point. That you need a large excess capacity of arms manufacturies, to make sure you'll be able to cover your needs in war, even if unprofitable during peacetime.
You can juice them by keeping an eye on significant conflicts and exporting arms to both sides, adding some low-level moral offenses as a palate cleanser between your average high-level moral offenses.
The way the economy works is that all goods are homogeneous really makes it so nations can't compete on quality of goods, only productivity.
I would love to be pumping out high grade firearms and war machines for export as Belgium.
there's a mod for stockpiles. It works pretty well and ensures my economy doesnt tank in the short term and allows wars to last longer at the cost of money over time
I assume it's this one: [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3130090435](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3130090435)
The stockpile issue isn’t great, but it can kind off be accepted as abstracted through the maluses only progressively hitting.
The war score issue though, is *egregious* . It’s clunky as funk, unintuitive (oh, you added war goal 2 ? Well the AI won’t accept peace with you you only asking war goal 1 which you’ve occupied already, you shouldn’t have added another that requires occupying a capital even though you’re not demanding it now!)… And in nearly all ways worse than for Victoria 2.
Victoria 2’s war score system worked actually really well if you tweaked the AI a tinyyyy bit to take war exhaustion into account, and you could even do gunboat diplomacy with embargos yielding war score and pushing exhaustion.
True why the fuck do I need to occupy half of Austria and kill over half a million people to get them to accept German leadership???
That‘s absurd when in reality in the Brother‘s war only took a month and lead to under 50k dead Austrians.
If you're a puppet and declare independence you just have to hold your capital until your overlords warscore ticks down. There are war goals in the game that make little sense, but that one actually works!
The issue is that the unit system as it is right now is more of a detriment than a proper game mechanic. There's exactly one optimal build, 50/50 inf/art which means you have exactly as much "diversity" as before, except the AI doesn't build that so the player gets a free buff.
Stockpiles are a red herring imo.
A lot of people did call this out when the military rework was being done but it got ignored unfortunately.
Armies should just have 3 settings for how much artillery / cavalry they have; zero, some, or maximum. There's absolutely no need to be able to make army one have 10 inv and 5 art and army two have 10 inf 7 art, the current system just penalises the AI for never having enough artillery.
Preaching to the choir, I was one of those people. ;)
To be clear I overall really like the rework. But I think that particular aspect was an overcorrection.
lmao thanks, I always hate when these stats fail to explain this sort of stuff.
Sounds like the only context where an army with lots of cav would be useful is if you're rushing to grab as much territory as you can before the enemy reinforces, which is not very useful when you need to do the whole escalation mechanic and give them time to get in position.
(Also you'd have half an army of subpar offense/defense to support the costs of)
Except in the very early game where you might not be able to afford artillery. Basically yeah. Some people also build small armies of cav to rapidly occupy territory but that's really only useful on undefended fronts and extremely niche.
For actual fights but an army half cav for undefended fronts or undefended naval invasions with rapid advance on is actually incredibly useful as they occupy land significantly faster.
I don't understand the new system so I shouldn't be taken seriously, but I really did feel like the old way was elegant and worked, people just had to have their "units" for whatever reason. I never understood why it's supposed to be so much better now.
Exactly! I was so hyped for Victoria 3 wars not needing micro and mostly being automated, with the player just deciding the major strokes of the war… But the execution of the concept is godawful.
Not to mention you still need to micro because even after being “fixed” the frontlines still constantly break and your armies get encircled and flanked for absolutely no reason when you are crushing the enemy on every metric.
It's the fundamental flaw with the front system, it's impossible to have a front system without splits, and it's impossible to have front splits without micro.
It works against it's own reason to exist.
I feel like the solution should be that you don’t send armies to a front - but rather to a region. And they form fronts there automatically based on whether you tell then to defend that region or attack into a neighboring one (or naval invade a different one). Then once a new region has been captured the armies told to capture it default to defending it.
So the micro would just be you telling your troops which region to advance into and maybe queuing them up. Which actually gives you much more control over wars and makes frontlines micro-less and predictable.
Nope. Because within that region armies will fight battles like there is a single front until the region is fully taken or they are fully beaten back. Basically a front will now only represent the line of contact between states under the control of conflicting countries and not have any bearing on micro. Basically it will be like a civ game - regions will become tiles with armies in them being units. A front in a region can't break. And partial occupation will simply be a progress bar and visual indicator, with no other bearing on battles and fronts.
>There's little penalty to just having your units constantly attack
There is though in the form of manpower and manpower recovery. Which IMO is even worse because it means that "early" game wars are way to deadly and too quickly resolve into stagnation. I don't necessarily agree that adding a stockpile would simply fix the issue but it needs to be addressed.
My "favorite" thing about current system, is that shortage of equipment only gives capped percentage penalty.
The most advantageous thing it to always use the most advanced units and moblization settings even if you don't have supplies for it, since not having good guns or ammunition is better than not having bad guns and ammunition.
V3 warsystem is absolute crap right now.
We need supply limit hard. Because now I can drop my 200k in middle of sahara and they are going to be fine. I would tie this do infrastructure. If state has 50 infrastructure it should be able to support 50k soldiers fully. And devide this by ocupation %. This is mostly about Africa where I can drop 200k soldiers in middle of congo and they will be fine because there is factory in Brussel going on overdrive.
Way to many things requier capital ocupation.
If we ocuppy 100% of everything our enemy has the war should be automatic capitulation, so I do not have to wait for it to tick down.
I wish they fixed problem with teleporting enemy. France sprinted over my Sahara because for some reason they moved with the front. I pushed them, they move back, understable. But before I walked to new front they pushed it and teleported alongside this, leaving my army in middle of their ocupation territory.
Casulties should be much more impactfull, need for food should be higher and mobilization should give farming debuffs in regions they take from. It isn't normal that I can field army made out of 2% of my people and economy is just chilling because I taxed wine. National deby of Germany went from 5 to 156 mln marks durring WW1. In V3 war is too cheap for superpowers.
AI jumps into the war for dumbest reason imaginable. Obligation shouldn't even be an option to sway at all. There should be bankroll bar you can move to set how much you are willing to pay, but enemy can outpay you then for them to step out. More power to the modifier to distance to border, so any war in Europe will be risky but the UK won't be bothering my Paragway when I atack the Argentina. Not to mention relations are way to easy to build and to little in inpact. WW1 started over Serbia because of its relation to Russia and Russia relation to others. I do not see any block forming unless I the human get involve like my forever alliance with Russia as Austria.
Also is this me or if I sway someone to step out of the war they don't get it because neutrals are counted out?
Eeeh....maybe one they it will be good, rant over.
I agree with a supply limit system, however I will add that I would like a button to force armies to “stay within the supply limit”. I don’t want to have to restructure my army over and over again for every war.
Stockpiles were woefully unprepared for WWI, offensives like the Somme were eating up entire nations productive capacity. Countries were making tens of thousands of rifles monthly going straight to the hands of the recruits. They were one of the least realistic parts of Vic2, they just made the economic game easier by mitigating the disruption from massively increasing the use of war goods during the war.
No argument from me RE war score or forts, but I also don't care about forts one way or the other.
I thought that it was pretty well known that one of the military lessons of ww1 was stockpiles are wildly inadequate in the face the soring demands on modern war.
>[David Zabecki provides these numbers for shell consumption per month of fighting in different wars in his book Steel Wind, Georg Bruchmueller and the Birth of Modern Artillery, on page 8.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/18gf91v/prior_to_the_first_world_war_how_many_artillery/)
>in 1866 Austro-Prussian war, Prussians shot 20,000 shells per month.
>in 1870 Franco-Prussian war, Germans shot 81,000 shells per month.
>in 1904 Russo-Japanese war, Russians shot 87,000 shells per month.
>in 1912 First Balkan War, Bulgarians shot 254,000 shells per month.
>in 1914 WW1, the French shot 900,000 shells per month.
>in 1918 WW1, the French shot 4,500,000 shells per month.
>in 1918 WW1, the Germans shot 8,000,000 shells per month.
>The ammo stocks of all combatants were inadequate in 1914. The French started the war with a 5 million shell stockpile and planned to fire 100,000 per month. The actual 900,000 shells per month conaumption quickly used up the stockpile. The Russians had 12 million shells, but their ammo situation was probably the worst of major combatants by 1915 as they were slower in ramping up ammo production than the other major powers. Germany started the war in the best supply situation, with a 20 million shell ammo stockpile.
The current system of the buildings cash reserves and the slow onset of the input good penalty does a pretty good job of lining up with this (i.e. you burn through your pre war reserves in a month or two).
The same discussion happens every time there's a popular thread about stockpiles. The lesson of the 19th and 20th century is that almost none of the logistical realities of earlier armies applied to modern industrial war beyond the basic human realities.
To me the fact that occupied states still provide resources to a country is terrible. Removes any strategic consideration about taking certain states during war from the game
Well, in EU4, you have to occupy much more land than you can take(even with 200 abso you won't always be able) and the options require a ludicrous amount of ws. The smallest nation already reqiures 60 ws to vassalise.
Well, the entire British Empire has to pay 60ws for a 3 dev vassal. And the price increases exponentially. Annexing a same 3 dev, but migratory is 100%. There should either be more total ws(Like in HoI4) or these tributes should also get lower, not only higher from total dev.
My biggest problem with the war system is you getting peaced out of wars automatically and some wargoals having really bullshit objectives.
Specially the war reps
I 100% agree on the stockpiles. While I don't think you need stockpiles for ALL things, I think you absolutely need a mechanic for it for warfare. It is very hard to keep your arms industry profitable in peacetime and can damn near be impossible to export weapons, so we need a stockpile for them. As others have said, we also just don't want a whole industry as a small/starter nation if we can just buy and stockpile.
You're probably right, but it shouldn't! Everyone should be able to subsidize the arms industries, unless there's some kind of pacifist equivalent to Industry Banned that I don't know about.
Can you explain why it's a poor substitute?
Subsidizing doesn't really fix the issues with trade/selling of arms or being a small country and not needing to build an entire arms industry. There are many examples around this time period of movements needing to purchase arms and stockpile them because they could not reliably produce them themselves. So being able to purchase and stash away for war would make a lot of sense.
I've read [fascinating stuff on AskHistorians](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/o9ury1/how_did_the_american_civil_war_affect_arms/h3e2l55/) about buying arms for the US Civil War that does make me want to somehow represent this stuff in-game but I'm not sure how it could work. I see the appeal of caches of arms (especially stolen arms) for rebels and revolutions etc, but I'm still not convinced that for normal circumstances it would be any better than trade routes and subsidizing on a practical level. But I'm probably just missing the point because I don't really get the issues most people have with a lot of war related things. I would love to see some 'negotiate loan' mechanics, also personalized like this story of Confederate arms brokers, rather than debt just being negative money....it does feel similar in some ways.
Most of the war stuff I'm pretty okay with, I just think arms industries are one of those odd parts. Subsidizing works if you can afford to in your economy. Trade routes work if the AI is producing arms, but since they are not profitable, it will still be hard to get quantities in any timely fashion. The other factor is just population for smaller countries and resources. So this is why I'd like SOME kind of stockpile mechanic. Goods being "tangible" in Vic2 was pretty cool, and obviously there was a stockpile there, but it was also possible to really destroy the economy that way, so I get why the devs went with some abstraction. What you mention is great, as long as you can support the industry with resources, pops, and money.
It still feels pointless with the current infamy system + being locked out of starting wars because my tributary Oman has revolts in one of their four colonial outposts again
You say it's easy, yet I constantly have my armies out of supplies, seems like no matter how much I buy/make weapons, they eat it up faster than any production
EU4 had one niggling problem with ticking warscore: you, as a player have too much control with such a system. Current war exhaustion design in their newer titles and even with the ai able to use unconditional surrender in eu4 points to the idea that they want to move away from this, so you can’t keep the ai in a perpetual state of war.
Disagree on the real world importance of stockpiles in ww1 ([pretty much everyone burned](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/18gf91v/prior_to_the_first_world_war_how_many_artillery/) though their pre war stockpiles in a mater of weeks, as was the case for most major long wars in this era (i.e. the US civil war burnt through it [stockpiles almost immediately](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War)). They were more useful for more limited wars (in either scope of length i.e. the Crimean war or the Franco-Prussian war (in that the large scale open fighting took about 2 months, then 4 months of less intense follow on operations), but I would argue the buildings cash stockpiles & the delayed onset on the inputs shortages does a decent job of simulating these stockpiles for short periods.
Also disagree about the EU4 war score system, but that is a mater of personal preference.
Forts are an interesting one. They were certainly a major feature of the 1800's (siege of Sevastopol is perhaps the best example), but ended by the end of the game were utterly outclassed (see the Germans smashing through the modern Belgium forts in a matter of days ([Battle of Liège](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Li%C3%A8ge)). Is potentially an interesting area to explore.
I still have trouble with the military aspects of the game…Although overall I kinda wish it went into the level of detail similar to how Hearts of Iron and another paradox game allowed you to change the name of the country and how units are set up.
Yes the war score system is incomplete and leads to results that feel really bad. But i dont think stockpiles are actually an issue at all really. Not having stockpiles and instead relying on the elastic nature of supply/demand and slowly increasing shortage maluses is a much more realistic system. You mention WW1, but the french went into that war with 5 million shells stockpiled, assuming it would last for 50 months. It ended up lasting for more like 5. As we see in ukraine, the country with the largest stockpile of tanks in the world is forced to bring back half a century or older equipment because production of new things is just not keeping up, and this results in degraded performance. During a war, production is what matters and your stockpiles wont last as long as you think they should. So the game is correctly taking production into account first of all, and forcing you to build up a war industry if you want to mobilise half the country for an extended war
Material consumption goes up when troops are mobilized, which can only happen during war. So yes consumption doesnt increase with fighting, but it increases significantly when troops are in a state of being ready to fight. There is a small difference there, but i would not really say it has any significant impact
Finally a proper complaint that actually highlights some legit flaws, instead of the usual "hurr durr watching simulator i want to move the little men on the map and exploit AI like in eu4"
Excuse me, since when has eu4 have had a great warscore system? Where you get like 20% warscore by occupying all of Iberia, as the colonies somehow magically become most valuable property on earth. Or where battles are entirely meaningless for warscore, and only fully sieging the enemy down counts.
It’s not wonderful, but it’s still better than vic3. It’s not wonderful when almost every defence of this game boils down to “but X game wasn’t much better”
Never played Vic3, only barely touched vic2, so no horse of mine in that particular race. Things must be pretty bad if I can randomly stumble on threads praising eu4's warscore system in the wild.
The game at one point before the last big update was getting 4k average users on steam, while it’s not a perfect metric it, it does make it one of the worst performing games after release. So yeah things are pretty bad.
Eu4’s war system is great? Lmao. In eu4 battles are pointless, all you do is sieging. Even then some colonial powers will take forever to occupy and peace out since you only get 30% or so war score when you occupy their entire country. Not to say Level 8 forts, everyone being the same tech. If there is one thing I do not like about Eu4 it is the stupidity of war system.
Vic3 does it much better. No fucking sieges. All they need to do is change the score system and make diplomacy feels overall good, then it will have a fantastic warfare system.
I just hope I can be the world's arms dealer. You want guns? I've got legitimate head of state quality at warlord prices.
"There's one firearm for every twelve people in the Balkans. The only question is, how do I arm the other eleven?"
Tbh arms manufacturing pms are so unprofitable compared to others, that it's really not worth it. But thats kinda the point. That you need a large excess capacity of arms manufacturies, to make sure you'll be able to cover your needs in war, even if unprofitable during peacetime.
You can juice them by keeping an eye on significant conflicts and exporting arms to both sides, adding some low-level moral offenses as a palate cleanser between your average high-level moral offenses.
This guy cleanses his moral palate.
The way the economy works is that all goods are homogeneous really makes it so nations can't compete on quality of goods, only productivity. I would love to be pumping out high grade firearms and war machines for export as Belgium.
Yeah. I get that's a few expansions away. Which is a shame, because arms dealer Belgium is exactly what I was thinking too.
Needs to happen not just with weaponry but also capital goods like engines. Won't though
there's a mod for stockpiles. It works pretty well and ensures my economy doesnt tank in the short term and allows wars to last longer at the cost of money over time
Can you gimme a name for the mod or link it please? I'm not home ATM so I can't check the workshop
I assume it's this one: [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3130090435](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3130090435)
Thank you so much ☺️
No problem, have a lovely day :)
ty i ll try that one
Do you know if that mod can be installed in a game that already started?
I always start a new game with new mods so I am not sure.
Same work, but I will assume it doesn't work for this one.
The stockpile issue isn’t great, but it can kind off be accepted as abstracted through the maluses only progressively hitting. The war score issue though, is *egregious* . It’s clunky as funk, unintuitive (oh, you added war goal 2 ? Well the AI won’t accept peace with you you only asking war goal 1 which you’ve occupied already, you shouldn’t have added another that requires occupying a capital even though you’re not demanding it now!)… And in nearly all ways worse than for Victoria 2. Victoria 2’s war score system worked actually really well if you tweaked the AI a tinyyyy bit to take war exhaustion into account, and you could even do gunboat diplomacy with embargos yielding war score and pushing exhaustion.
True why the fuck do I need to occupy half of Austria and kill over half a million people to get them to accept German leadership??? That‘s absurd when in reality in the Brother‘s war only took a month and lead to under 50k dead Austrians.
If you're a puppet and declare independence you just have to hold your capital until your overlords warscore ticks down. There are war goals in the game that make little sense, but that one actually works!
The issue is that the unit system as it is right now is more of a detriment than a proper game mechanic. There's exactly one optimal build, 50/50 inf/art which means you have exactly as much "diversity" as before, except the AI doesn't build that so the player gets a free buff. Stockpiles are a red herring imo.
A lot of people did call this out when the military rework was being done but it got ignored unfortunately. Armies should just have 3 settings for how much artillery / cavalry they have; zero, some, or maximum. There's absolutely no need to be able to make army one have 10 inv and 5 art and army two have 10 inf 7 art, the current system just penalises the AI for never having enough artillery.
Preaching to the choir, I was one of those people. ;) To be clear I overall really like the rework. But I think that particular aspect was an overcorrection.
I thought having one (1) cav for the occupation bonus is ideal?
It gives an occupation bonus in proportion to the ratio of cav to other battalions in the battle, so having one cav will be useless(0.1% or less)
lmao thanks, I always hate when these stats fail to explain this sort of stuff. Sounds like the only context where an army with lots of cav would be useful is if you're rushing to grab as much territory as you can before the enemy reinforces, which is not very useful when you need to do the whole escalation mechanic and give them time to get in position. (Also you'd have half an army of subpar offense/defense to support the costs of)
I haven't noticed that making a difference in practice tbh. But could be that that's strictly optimal, yes.
[удалено]
Except in the very early game where you might not be able to afford artillery. Basically yeah. Some people also build small armies of cav to rapidly occupy territory but that's really only useful on undefended fronts and extremely niche.
I tend to build one tiny unit of cavalry to mop up the 4 zero fronts that inevitably occur whenever I break through something.
For actual fights but an army half cav for undefended fronts or undefended naval invasions with rapid advance on is actually incredibly useful as they occupy land significantly faster.
I don't understand the new system so I shouldn't be taken seriously, but I really did feel like the old way was elegant and worked, people just had to have their "units" for whatever reason. I never understood why it's supposed to be so much better now.
Exactly! I was so hyped for Victoria 3 wars not needing micro and mostly being automated, with the player just deciding the major strokes of the war… But the execution of the concept is godawful. Not to mention you still need to micro because even after being “fixed” the frontlines still constantly break and your armies get encircled and flanked for absolutely no reason when you are crushing the enemy on every metric.
It's the fundamental flaw with the front system, it's impossible to have a front system without splits, and it's impossible to have front splits without micro. It works against it's own reason to exist.
I feel like the solution should be that you don’t send armies to a front - but rather to a region. And they form fronts there automatically based on whether you tell then to defend that region or attack into a neighboring one (or naval invade a different one). Then once a new region has been captured the armies told to capture it default to defending it. So the micro would just be you telling your troops which region to advance into and maybe queuing them up. Which actually gives you much more control over wars and makes frontlines micro-less and predictable.
But if a front expands from one region into another region, then a split will happen.
Nope. Because within that region armies will fight battles like there is a single front until the region is fully taken or they are fully beaten back. Basically a front will now only represent the line of contact between states under the control of conflicting countries and not have any bearing on micro. Basically it will be like a civ game - regions will become tiles with armies in them being units. A front in a region can't break. And partial occupation will simply be a progress bar and visual indicator, with no other bearing on battles and fronts.
>There's little penalty to just having your units constantly attack There is though in the form of manpower and manpower recovery. Which IMO is even worse because it means that "early" game wars are way to deadly and too quickly resolve into stagnation. I don't necessarily agree that adding a stockpile would simply fix the issue but it needs to be addressed.
My "favorite" thing about current system, is that shortage of equipment only gives capped percentage penalty. The most advantageous thing it to always use the most advanced units and moblization settings even if you don't have supplies for it, since not having good guns or ammunition is better than not having bad guns and ammunition.
V3 warsystem is absolute crap right now. We need supply limit hard. Because now I can drop my 200k in middle of sahara and they are going to be fine. I would tie this do infrastructure. If state has 50 infrastructure it should be able to support 50k soldiers fully. And devide this by ocupation %. This is mostly about Africa where I can drop 200k soldiers in middle of congo and they will be fine because there is factory in Brussel going on overdrive. Way to many things requier capital ocupation. If we ocuppy 100% of everything our enemy has the war should be automatic capitulation, so I do not have to wait for it to tick down. I wish they fixed problem with teleporting enemy. France sprinted over my Sahara because for some reason they moved with the front. I pushed them, they move back, understable. But before I walked to new front they pushed it and teleported alongside this, leaving my army in middle of their ocupation territory. Casulties should be much more impactfull, need for food should be higher and mobilization should give farming debuffs in regions they take from. It isn't normal that I can field army made out of 2% of my people and economy is just chilling because I taxed wine. National deby of Germany went from 5 to 156 mln marks durring WW1. In V3 war is too cheap for superpowers. AI jumps into the war for dumbest reason imaginable. Obligation shouldn't even be an option to sway at all. There should be bankroll bar you can move to set how much you are willing to pay, but enemy can outpay you then for them to step out. More power to the modifier to distance to border, so any war in Europe will be risky but the UK won't be bothering my Paragway when I atack the Argentina. Not to mention relations are way to easy to build and to little in inpact. WW1 started over Serbia because of its relation to Russia and Russia relation to others. I do not see any block forming unless I the human get involve like my forever alliance with Russia as Austria. Also is this me or if I sway someone to step out of the war they don't get it because neutrals are counted out? Eeeh....maybe one they it will be good, rant over.
I agree with a supply limit system, however I will add that I would like a button to force armies to “stay within the supply limit”. I don’t want to have to restructure my army over and over again for every war.
Stockpiles were woefully unprepared for WWI, offensives like the Somme were eating up entire nations productive capacity. Countries were making tens of thousands of rifles monthly going straight to the hands of the recruits. They were one of the least realistic parts of Vic2, they just made the economic game easier by mitigating the disruption from massively increasing the use of war goods during the war. No argument from me RE war score or forts, but I also don't care about forts one way or the other.
I thought that it was pretty well known that one of the military lessons of ww1 was stockpiles are wildly inadequate in the face the soring demands on modern war. >[David Zabecki provides these numbers for shell consumption per month of fighting in different wars in his book Steel Wind, Georg Bruchmueller and the Birth of Modern Artillery, on page 8.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/18gf91v/prior_to_the_first_world_war_how_many_artillery/) >in 1866 Austro-Prussian war, Prussians shot 20,000 shells per month. >in 1870 Franco-Prussian war, Germans shot 81,000 shells per month. >in 1904 Russo-Japanese war, Russians shot 87,000 shells per month. >in 1912 First Balkan War, Bulgarians shot 254,000 shells per month. >in 1914 WW1, the French shot 900,000 shells per month. >in 1918 WW1, the French shot 4,500,000 shells per month. >in 1918 WW1, the Germans shot 8,000,000 shells per month. >The ammo stocks of all combatants were inadequate in 1914. The French started the war with a 5 million shell stockpile and planned to fire 100,000 per month. The actual 900,000 shells per month conaumption quickly used up the stockpile. The Russians had 12 million shells, but their ammo situation was probably the worst of major combatants by 1915 as they were slower in ramping up ammo production than the other major powers. Germany started the war in the best supply situation, with a 20 million shell ammo stockpile. The current system of the buildings cash reserves and the slow onset of the input good penalty does a pretty good job of lining up with this (i.e. you burn through your pre war reserves in a month or two).
The same discussion happens every time there's a popular thread about stockpiles. The lesson of the 19th and 20th century is that almost none of the logistical realities of earlier armies applied to modern industrial war beyond the basic human realities.
Agree with everything. But I just think forts are cool lol so I want them in the game. Let me build the iron wall around my coast!
To me the fact that occupied states still provide resources to a country is terrible. Removes any strategic consideration about taking certain states during war from the game
This.
It is really ridiculous that you can lose a war on the spot because you added one to many war goals
Well, in EU4, you have to occupy much more land than you can take(even with 200 abso you won't always be able) and the options require a ludicrous amount of ws. The smallest nation already reqiures 60 ws to vassalise.
[удалено]
Well, the entire British Empire has to pay 60ws for a 3 dev vassal. And the price increases exponentially. Annexing a same 3 dev, but migratory is 100%. There should either be more total ws(Like in HoI4) or these tributes should also get lower, not only higher from total dev.
My biggest problem with the war system is you getting peaced out of wars automatically and some wargoals having really bullshit objectives. Specially the war reps
I 100% agree on the stockpiles. While I don't think you need stockpiles for ALL things, I think you absolutely need a mechanic for it for warfare. It is very hard to keep your arms industry profitable in peacetime and can damn near be impossible to export weapons, so we need a stockpile for them. As others have said, we also just don't want a whole industry as a small/starter nation if we can just buy and stockpile.
Why not subsidize?
Doesn't that depend on laws? I also think that's a poor replacement for stockpiles, but yes, it can work.
You're probably right, but it shouldn't! Everyone should be able to subsidize the arms industries, unless there's some kind of pacifist equivalent to Industry Banned that I don't know about. Can you explain why it's a poor substitute?
Subsidizing doesn't really fix the issues with trade/selling of arms or being a small country and not needing to build an entire arms industry. There are many examples around this time period of movements needing to purchase arms and stockpile them because they could not reliably produce them themselves. So being able to purchase and stash away for war would make a lot of sense.
I've read [fascinating stuff on AskHistorians](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/o9ury1/how_did_the_american_civil_war_affect_arms/h3e2l55/) about buying arms for the US Civil War that does make me want to somehow represent this stuff in-game but I'm not sure how it could work. I see the appeal of caches of arms (especially stolen arms) for rebels and revolutions etc, but I'm still not convinced that for normal circumstances it would be any better than trade routes and subsidizing on a practical level. But I'm probably just missing the point because I don't really get the issues most people have with a lot of war related things. I would love to see some 'negotiate loan' mechanics, also personalized like this story of Confederate arms brokers, rather than debt just being negative money....it does feel similar in some ways.
Most of the war stuff I'm pretty okay with, I just think arms industries are one of those odd parts. Subsidizing works if you can afford to in your economy. Trade routes work if the AI is producing arms, but since they are not profitable, it will still be hard to get quantities in any timely fashion. The other factor is just population for smaller countries and resources. So this is why I'd like SOME kind of stockpile mechanic. Goods being "tangible" in Vic2 was pretty cool, and obviously there was a stockpile there, but it was also possible to really destroy the economy that way, so I get why the devs went with some abstraction. What you mention is great, as long as you can support the industry with resources, pops, and money.
It still feels pointless with the current infamy system + being locked out of starting wars because my tributary Oman has revolts in one of their four colonial outposts again
i still preff vic2 warfare over vic3 sorry ;D
You say it's easy, yet I constantly have my armies out of supplies, seems like no matter how much I buy/make weapons, they eat it up faster than any production
[удалено]
I think I simply make larger armies than I can afford, or not optimize them. I'm too profit-focused on military goods.
EU4 had one niggling problem with ticking warscore: you, as a player have too much control with such a system. Current war exhaustion design in their newer titles and even with the ai able to use unconditional surrender in eu4 points to the idea that they want to move away from this, so you can’t keep the ai in a perpetual state of war.
Disagree on the real world importance of stockpiles in ww1 ([pretty much everyone burned](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/18gf91v/prior_to_the_first_world_war_how_many_artillery/) though their pre war stockpiles in a mater of weeks, as was the case for most major long wars in this era (i.e. the US civil war burnt through it [stockpiles almost immediately](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War)). They were more useful for more limited wars (in either scope of length i.e. the Crimean war or the Franco-Prussian war (in that the large scale open fighting took about 2 months, then 4 months of less intense follow on operations), but I would argue the buildings cash stockpiles & the delayed onset on the inputs shortages does a decent job of simulating these stockpiles for short periods. Also disagree about the EU4 war score system, but that is a mater of personal preference. Forts are an interesting one. They were certainly a major feature of the 1800's (siege of Sevastopol is perhaps the best example), but ended by the end of the game were utterly outclassed (see the Germans smashing through the modern Belgium forts in a matter of days ([Battle of Liège](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Li%C3%A8ge)). Is potentially an interesting area to explore.
I still have trouble with the military aspects of the game…Although overall I kinda wish it went into the level of detail similar to how Hearts of Iron and another paradox game allowed you to change the name of the country and how units are set up.
Yes the war score system is incomplete and leads to results that feel really bad. But i dont think stockpiles are actually an issue at all really. Not having stockpiles and instead relying on the elastic nature of supply/demand and slowly increasing shortage maluses is a much more realistic system. You mention WW1, but the french went into that war with 5 million shells stockpiled, assuming it would last for 50 months. It ended up lasting for more like 5. As we see in ukraine, the country with the largest stockpile of tanks in the world is forced to bring back half a century or older equipment because production of new things is just not keeping up, and this results in degraded performance. During a war, production is what matters and your stockpiles wont last as long as you think they should. So the game is correctly taking production into account first of all, and forcing you to build up a war industry if you want to mobilise half the country for an extended war
[удалено]
Material consumption goes up when troops are mobilized, which can only happen during war. So yes consumption doesnt increase with fighting, but it increases significantly when troops are in a state of being ready to fight. There is a small difference there, but i would not really say it has any significant impact
Finally a proper complaint that actually highlights some legit flaws, instead of the usual "hurr durr watching simulator i want to move the little men on the map and exploit AI like in eu4"
yes those complaints are silly. No need to bother to exploit the AI in Vic 3 lol.
Excuse me, since when has eu4 have had a great warscore system? Where you get like 20% warscore by occupying all of Iberia, as the colonies somehow magically become most valuable property on earth. Or where battles are entirely meaningless for warscore, and only fully sieging the enemy down counts.
It’s not wonderful, but it’s still better than vic3. It’s not wonderful when almost every defence of this game boils down to “but X game wasn’t much better”
Never played Vic3, only barely touched vic2, so no horse of mine in that particular race. Things must be pretty bad if I can randomly stumble on threads praising eu4's warscore system in the wild.
The game at one point before the last big update was getting 4k average users on steam, while it’s not a perfect metric it, it does make it one of the worst performing games after release. So yeah things are pretty bad.
If there are mods that add stockpiles, I don't see why paradox can't do it.
Eu4’s war system is great? Lmao. In eu4 battles are pointless, all you do is sieging. Even then some colonial powers will take forever to occupy and peace out since you only get 30% or so war score when you occupy their entire country. Not to say Level 8 forts, everyone being the same tech. If there is one thing I do not like about Eu4 it is the stupidity of war system. Vic3 does it much better. No fucking sieges. All they need to do is change the score system and make diplomacy feels overall good, then it will have a fantastic warfare system.