![]() ![]() Critically to me, it is also a soft-lock on the escalation of a war. It doesn't feel intuitive, and instead feels like a clock until 'the real action starts'. I have zero issues with this pillar conceptually, but I do have an issue with it's implementation.įirstly Diplomatic Plays as a system just seem to fall flat to me. On a fundamental level, this is an excellent core principle to be basing the system off. ![]() War is a continuation of diplomacy and War is Strategic are core design principles of the system and are where I feel the game has failed. I want to focus on some of the Pillar's of War layed out in this dev diary. However the resultant effort to change the traditional paradox war mechanics received extensive backlash, and now it has come to an even greater head with the leak. This can be seen from Wiz's and pdx's own words numerous times throughout the dev diaries, forum answers and other communication channels. Warfare in Victoria 3 was given the primary goal of being an extension of diplomacy. War is strategic is both misunderstood and over-abstracted by paradox, and over-simplification makes it an even worse system for everyone involved. War is a continuation of Diplomacy feels like War is actually the end of Diplomacy and not just another element of it. Tldr: Victoria 3 warfare is a poorly designed system from the ground up as two of the core design pillars are poorly implemented and one of them is additionally poorly designed. This is also mostly word vomit that cannot have really have a tldr but I will try make one. Instead I want to tackle this new system from the perspective of its own merits, demerits, concepts and as a mechanic within the overall game. I want to tackle this with an open mind, and make it clear that I am not just upset about the change from the normal pdx pattern of stacks and provinces. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |