111 Hours in, and I just can't anymore.

[Zeromentor]

I've played this game for 111 hours. Created Germany a couple times, formed Ethiopia, Italy and took over all of the middle east as Russia. A couple Argentina runs that I lost interest in, and a few Mexico and USA games I never finished either.

But I just can't keep playing thanks to this pathetic war system. Long drawn out fronts that make wars take literal ages, or a dozen different fronts within miles of each other. Randomness at every turn during battles, where sometimes tech, numbers and economy mean nothing.

What was the final straw? I tried to grab the Algiers achievement, and for starting as Algeria, taking Tunis and Tripoli from the Ottomans over two wars while they lost to Egypt, I somehow drew the incredibly neutral ire of the UK. Where once they couldn't care less about my existence, with a reputable reputation (-2.6 anyway), they suddenly decided they wanted Tunis, and to split my nation in half.

So we begin a pitiful war, them and their massive list of puppets and domains, versus Me, Austria and Lucca. Austria wanted to change the West Aussies' government type, and Lucca wanted nothing as we had a defensive pact and they were cool with this arrangement.

Then starts the stupidest loss I have experienced yet. The british never came. No massive naval invasions, no embargos, no puppets pooling troops into my lands... Nothing. Instead I took my 2 whole ships with 27 troops and invaded every holding they had in the Med-Sea, central and south america, and was starting an invasion of Ireland. All unopposed. Never lost a battle, and the British never moved on me. After they lost roughly 6 million pounds, I was crippling their colonies and starting to move closer to their home islands (compared to my 160k in expenses), and they had roughly ten times the losses (all attrition of course), my country suddenly surrendered...

Yeah. I had a similar experience when I was trying to form Ethiopia by war, where I would be conquering land and suddenly I'd "lose" and half my tribal lands would change sides and I'd be forced under a truce and have lost while I was winning. Now I come across this again, where the game suddenly says, while it is LOSING TO ME, that it has won. It conquered zero lands, no colonies, no allies, nothing. Never won a single battle. Never touched its war-objective, and yet, while losing holdings all over the world and watching North Africans land unopposed in Ireland my country suddenly decides they have beaten me and just gives away its lands.

All I wanted was a white peace. I never agreed to anything else, and the game seems happy to do this every once and awhile with ZERO reasons given as to why.

I think it is time I set this game to the side until next year. Let them fix it up, possible drop a few major patches to rework or makeover the entire system perhaps, but I just can't watch hours worth of work suddenly disappear because my game wants to act like a spoiled child and declare victory without ever winning a single thing.

[Dave Reckoning]

Fair enough, you're not enjoying it.

However, if you want to enjoy it more, focus more on nation-building and society-evolution, rather than war. That stuff can be (is) very interesting in itself. And the game's much more about those things. But if you want war, play HOI4 or one of the others.

But why bang yourself over the head - if you're not enjoying it, stop.

[baldrick]

I sympathise with the OP and to just tell them to play another game is silly. The Victorian age was full of wars and minor skirmishes. The British were constantly at war throughout the period. The list of British wars is insane. They fought Maoris, Zulus, Turks, Ashantis, Boers, Indians, Persians, Egyptians, Sudanese, Sikhs, etc. etc. Warfare is a huge part of this period.

[Dave Reckoning]

Originally posted by baldrick:

I sympathise with the OP and to just tell them to play another game is silly.

It's not silly at all - if he's not enjoying this game, play a different one. Surely the silly thing would be to continue to do something he doesn't enjoy?

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by baldrick:

I sympathise with the OP and to just tell them to play another game is silly. The Victorian age was full of wars and minor skirmishes. The British were constantly at war throughout the period. The list of British wars is insane. They fought Maoris, Zulus, Turks, Ashantis, Boers, Indians, Persians, Egyptians, Sudanese, Sikhs, etc. etc. Warfare is a huge part of this period.

There is WARFARE in this game. The new system is just <cough> not working very well at the moment. You can have all of those with the new system and once the issues are ironed out (probably early next year), it'll provide a better war system for the period than any of their other titles to date (except of course for HOI4). You're just not able to micro any units of the map which seems to be what some people think is a war system.

And, no, it's not silly to advise someone to play another game. It's not particularly helpful as the OP is providing good feedback but he did say 'I just can't anymore' in the title of the OP which does invite such advice on Steam discussion boards.

[Zero, Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Dave Reckoning:

Fair enough, you're not enjoying it.

However, if you want to enjoy it more, focus more on nation-building and society-evolution, rather than war. That stuff can be (is) very interesting in itself. And the game's much more about those things. But if you want war, play HOI4 or one of the others.

But why bang yourself over the head - if you're not enjoying it, stop.

I'm sorry, but despite the fact you're winning the argument, too much time has passed and the forum just - decides - you've lost, thank you for concede!

-- oh you don't agree?
Guess what, that's how it works in the game, the system you were defending.

*takes your war goals*

[Dave Reckoning]

Originally posted by Zero, Dark Knight:

Originally posted by Dave Reckoning:

Fair enough, you're not enjoying it.

However, if you want to enjoy it more, focus more on nation-building and society-evolution, rather than war. That stuff can be (is) very interesting in itself. And the game's much more about those things. But if you want war, play HOI4 or one of the others.

But why bang yourself over the head - if you're not enjoying it, stop.

I'm sorry, but despite the fact you're winning the argument, too much time has passed and the forum just - decides - you've lost, thank you for concede!

-- oh you don't agree?
Guess what, that's how it works in the game, the system you were defending.

*takes your war goals*

I very much enjoyed your comment !

But as I reflect, I have to admit that I only play to enjoy myself, and here I have (thanks to you) enjoyed myself.

*retakes war goals* (and takes yours?)

[Zero, Dark Knight]

Just that someone who is winning a war, like OP was, should not be forced into a situation based on the game's whim which, frankly, makes no logical or mathematical sense. The new war system is a burning fuse - You will lose - Win before you lose -.

If you don't win because, the enemy is just too big (too much land). then the game doesn't care, it doesn't respect the progress of the war you did. it doesn't respect who lost more money or men, it doesn't respect the players time. or the 'war score'.

It just says. - Timer's done - and dictates that the "loser", gets whatever they asked for, because the "winning side" didn't win hard enough-. and everything the "winner" took in the process off the enemy, is gone, given back to the "loser".
Wars can go on for a very long time, or conflicts. and people don't tend to mind if they do. - despite what a few protesters would have you think. Also, it's a government decision to end the war. Not the people's.

So who surrenders ? Why do they surrender ?

Why is there no decision to say 'we've reached -100 and our government is unsure if we should continue with this' - take a 10% income loss until end of the war. (+gain 50 war score, going up to -50)

(repeating every time it comes to -100 again.)

or 'end the war in a white peace'

for the side with the most conquered territory?

There're just so many systems/options which could have better solution - and yet paradox chose the one which upsets players the most.

[shiggies713]

the ticking warscore is bugged for sure in a multitude of ways I won't even begin to explain on here.

[Rialm]

Originally posted by Zeromentor:

they had roughly ten times the losses (all attrition of course), my country suddenly surrendered...

yeah, enforcing surrende is in my opinion a really bad design, it would be better a debuff or something similiar. like in CK3, people get more and more angry because the war keeps going. I would even prefer some rebels appearing or some interest group losing opinion until the war is not finished.

And yeah, just wait for the updates if you don't feel comfortable. I've the itch of playing but the UI makes me so anxious that I'm just going to wait. Just enjoy and wait-

[Zeromentor]

I thank you kind folks for keeping it civil underneath my (relatively) passive rant. I have hundreds of hours in other Paradox games (EU4 being well over 1k by itself, and I'm sure Stellaris is a close second for me). I truly enjoy the timeline that Vic3 is set in, and I feel the foundations of a good game are already here and it just needs time and effort by the dev team to truly make it shine, much like as has happened for EU4 and Stellaris since release.

I'm not trying to bash the game, really just vent my frustrations over the anti-logical war system. The economy portion has its own issues, and many political segments could use some work, but as the game is now I feel its just too frustrating to be 'fun' for me and Grand Strategy games are really my core type of games I play.

And to the person that said I should play other games, that's what I intend to do for the time being. I'll definitely return with future patches, but as of now I've reached that point just before burn-out and I'd rather have a reason to boot it up in the future and not lament over the war-coated glasses of nightmares past. *cough* Ethiopia *cough*

[Kimlin]

I’m not a fan of auto-capitulation. If I’m getting radicals and going bankrupt, let me decide it’s time to call it a day.

If my whole country is captured that makes more sense.

If I am winning a war, I Have a professional army, my revenue is in the green and my reserves are full, why would I give up?

At the very least a negotiation should take place not just I lose. I could tolerate the peace screen popping up instead of the auto-capitulation but I still think it should be my choice.

[kgkong]

Originally posted by Kimlin:

I’m not a fan of auto-capitulation. If I’m getting radicals and going bankrupt, let me decide it’s time to call it a day.

If my whole country is captured that makes more sense.

If I am winning a war, I Have a professional army, my revenue is in the green and my reserves are full, why would I give up?

At the very least a negotiation should take place not just I lose. I could tolerate the peace screen popping up instead of the auto-capitulation but I still think it should be my choice.

I'd even take a paused game and warning pop-up advising you your war score is ticking too low and capitulation is imminent.

Originally posted by shiggies713:

the ticking warscore is bugged for sure in a multitude of ways I won't even begin to explain on here.

It's not necessarily bugged. It's most people aren't actually trying to target appropriate war goal targets in war when waging war. They'll get targeted for war, in the diplomatic play stage they'll pick a war goal like war reps or humiliate, and then all they do is defend their territory and expect the war to end just because they keep killing troops that attack. Or they target only secondary states to the overlord's market.

Independence wars are easy - Just start occupying a couple of states.
War reps/humiliate - just try and occupy the cap state. This one can be annoying as you might need to push in a hard naval invasion. Raid convoys or occupy other states they control to draw their navy and military away.
Any war goal that targets a specific state, you need to occupy parts of that specific state.

[Dave Reckoning]

Originally posted by Zeromentor:

I thank you kind folks for keeping it civil underneath my (relatively) passive rant. I have hundreds of hours in other Paradox games (EU4 being well over 1k by itself, and I'm sure Stellaris is a close second for me). I truly enjoy the timeline that Vic3 is set in, and I feel the foundations of a good game are already here and it just needs time and effort by the dev team to truly make it shine, much like as has happened for EU4 and Stellaris since release.

and ....

the game is now I feel its just too frustrating to be 'fun' for me and Grand Strategy games are really my core type of games I play.

and ...

And to the person that said I should play other games, that's what I intend to do for the time being. I'll definitely return with future patches, but as of now I've reached that point just before burn-out

Yes, best to quit before you get too fed up ever to come back to the game. They'll improve the military dynamics in time.

However I would also say that, as well as the idea of playing a different game (which may well be best), I did mention that you could explore playing Vic3 in different ways. As an experienced strategy gamer like you, I've already enjoyed a couple of play-throughs without getting into trouble with the war mechanics. I've had fun focusing on nation-building itself, without anything but the most minor of wars, and I've also enjoyed exploring and trying to understand fully the economic and political aspects (and I found there was actually a lot more than meets the eye in those aspects, enough for at least a few more play-throughs).

Also, one thing I've liked is the aspect of the game where, if you play realistically, you see how war is rarely (never?) the best approach to international relations, and in fact there are few occasions where it is really necessary to go to war at all (either aggressively or defensively). There's a quotation from Isaac Azimov (in the Foundation series) that says "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - although I wouldn't want to imply you or anyone else here is incompetent, I agree with the core idea that going to war is absolutely a last resort and implies having failed at all other options; my play-throughs have shown you can play this game without getting into wars, and that it's fun to play that way. (And, if it's your "thing", you can also "win" that way.) Perhaps that might be worth a try for you, before you go?

Best regards,
Dave

[Ashling]

Originally posted by KingGorillaKong:

It's not necessarily bugged. It's most people aren't actually trying to target appropriate war goal targets in war when waging war. They'll get targeted for war, in the diplomatic play stage they'll pick a war goal like war reps or humiliate, and then all they do is defend their territory and expect the war to end just because they keep killing troops that attack. Or they target only secondary states to the overlord's market.

Independence wars are easy - Just start occupying a couple of states.
War reps/humiliate - just try and occupy the cap state. This one can be annoying as you might need to push in a hard naval invasion. Raid convoys or occupy other states they control to draw their navy and military away.
Any war goal that targets a specific state, you need to occupy parts of that specific state.

But in this example Britain was also ignoring the war goal.

Originally posted by Dave Reckoning:

Also, one thing I've liked is the aspect of the game where, if you play realistically, you see how war is rarely (never?) the best approach to international relations, and in fact there are few occasions where it is really necessary to go to war at all (either aggressively or defensively). There's a quotation from Isaac Azimov (in the Foundation series) that says "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - although I wouldn't want to imply you or anyone else here is incompetent, I agree with the core idea that going to war is absolutely a last resort and implies having failed at all other options;

That might be a bit of a modern take, certainly true for WW1, but remember this is the age of imperialism. They weren’t exactly integrating their colonial & foreign subjects into citizenship.

[kgkong]

Originally posted by Triangle:

Originally posted by KingGorillaKong:

It's not necessarily bugged. It's most people aren't actually trying to target appropriate war goal targets in war when waging war. They'll get targeted for war, in the diplomatic play stage they'll pick a war goal like war reps or humiliate, and then all they do is defend their territory and expect the war to end just because they keep killing troops that attack. Or they target only secondary states to the overlord's market.

Independence wars are easy - Just start occupying a couple of states.
War reps/humiliate - just try and occupy the cap state. This one can be annoying as you might need to push in a hard naval invasion. Raid convoys or occupy other states they control to draw their navy and military away.
Any war goal that targets a specific state, you need to occupy parts of that specific state.

But in this example Britain was also ignoring the war goal.

Then you gotta ask, why are they ignoring the war goal?

Britain is a big nation and market economy in the game. They face a lot of problems. Internally, economically, and with their puppets/dominions. They face several diplomatic plays and wars frequently. Odds are, they're busy being distracted by something else, or you're playing on the AI easy difficulty and they're just being absolutely incompetent because the AI algorithm favours protecting the player far too much which doesn't play out for a good dynamic experience.