Paradox Studio Thread

Favorite Paradox Game?


  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
1850 - 1870 or so was an unusual period in that 1815 - 1914 era of peace in Europe, I read a good explanation of it once that IIRC was the initial struggle to adapt to the age of nationalism after the Revolutions of 1848 that Europe eventually "solved".

I think the problem with abstracting war is that Paradox isn't going to do it well and they won't make the other features interesting enough to devote your time to. I think it's a bit of a cop out to the fact that a war in the mid-1800s and a war in the early 1900s are two entirely different things with how the armies are organized. The Hearts of Iron system fits a lot more for the post-1900 era since Victoria 2 struggled at representing the sort of operations a WWI-era army did. And there's other very important shit from that era like naval races that are omitted entirely, like all building the biggest, baddest pack of battleships does is add to your prestige score to a lesser degree than going to Africa and shooting black people does.

On the other hand, it could make conquering Africa more realistic and dare I say fun than just dropping a stack of troops to overwhelm some poor negro nation's large but backwards army. But that's probably locked behind a $15 DLC that will break the game on release.
I'd hardly call 20 years of war in the middle a "99 year peace", but that's just a combination of my own autism and the American wanting to laugh at European mutual bloodlust.

As to the rest, yes, Paradox is going to fuck all of this up. Never played Vicky 2, only Stellaris and HoI IV, so I don't exactly have high hopes, especially given the enduring clusterfuck that Leviathan turned out to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJLiautaud
I'd hardly call 20 years of war in the middle a "99 year peace", but that's just a combination of my own autism and the American wanting to laugh at European mutual bloodlust.

As to the rest, yes, Paradox is going to fuck all of this up. Never played Vicky 2, only Stellaris and HoI IV, so I don't exactly have high hopes, especially given the enduring clusterfuck that Leviathan turned out to be.
Every war combined in that period adds up to the American Civil War in terms of deaths which should show you how limited they were. Most of the deaths were Russian soldiers who died in the Crimean War of disease far from the frontlines because of how utterly abysmal their military was at logistics and sanitation even by the standards of the day. And there were no global campaigns like all the 18th century wars (i.e. Seven Years War, American Revolutionary War, etc.).
 
  • Like
Reactions: millais
Every war combined in that period adds up to the American Civil War in terms of deaths which should show you how limited they were. Most of the deaths were Russian soldiers who died in the Crimean War of disease far from the frontlines because of how utterly abysmal their military was at logistics and sanitation even by the standards of the day. And there were no global campaigns like all the 18th century wars (i.e. Seven Years War, American Revolutionary War, etc.).
You do realize that in 1860 the population of the United states was over 30 million? Yeah, you shouldn't be surprised a 4 year long, continent-wide civil war ended up in piles of bodies. Especially when the two capitals are a mere 100 miles or so from each other. And again, twice as many soldiers died of disease and other non-combat causes, as was typical at the time. 110k+ combat fatalities on the Union side... but 230k+ disease and accident fatalities. Peak strength for both sides was under what was mustered in the Franco-Prussian War, 698k for the North... 949,337 for Prussia. 360k for the Confederacy... 710k for France. Total deployment for the French was 2,000,000 or so, just a smidge less than the 2,200,000 the Union had! The only "limited" part of it was the French being so incompetent the war only lasted six months. And they still managed to rack up 77k dead of combat causes in that time, whereas the Confederates in 4 years only got 94k. I know people like to hype up the "muh American bloodbath" meme, but if the French had managed to put up any sort of successful defense WW1 would have come early to Europe, the Chassepot and Dreyse rifles being acceptable substitutes for machine guns given their rates of fire.
 
As :lunacy: as Vicky 3's warfare idea sounds, from what I recall, Old Vicky also had a really shitty warfare system. It's been ages since I played Vicky, and it's easily my least favorite of the Paradox titles (unless you include Tyranny, which I don't), but I distinctly remember finding both the warfare, and the expansion/colonization aspects, to be woefully inadequate. Most nations were functionally unable to engage in war or colonization; the ones who could reasonably engage in war only had a few local targets, and the ones who could colonize where limited to East Africa (for Europoors) or a few islands in the Pacific (Japan and America, maybe).

Also, I love how diplomatic this journo is trying to be; saying it's horseshit, while all the while trying to appear as positive as possible in vain attempts to appease the PDX troons. Something something ethics in something something?



Predated any Snek names, but yes! Thunder Snek is awesome. I highly doubt I could manage a Thunder Dragon Empire WC on Current Patch, as when I did it, it was one of the first couple patches, back when the AI was so shit I could solo all of India with two CAV divisions running encirclements, and there was no limit on Paras and Mountain troops.
Warfare imho Is meh, in old Vicky but passable for that year it came out.
What is worse is whole infamy system.
Leť s say you play as USA and you want to get your modern day borders .
You will either do lot of save scumming or do nothing else than beating Mexicans for rest of the game.

War goal justification works in V2 in the way that you start justifing and there is random chance you get caught later you get caught less infamy you get.
Default price for one state Is 20 infamy.
Once you reach 25,00001 infamy whole world will attack you.
Infamy decays by 0,1 per month when you are at peace.

Thankfully pdx put in decisions that allows you to map paint map historical way (German, Italians Unification,USA,Carving of Africa...)

Also another problem If you dont play in new world. Good luck fighting half of population of territory you took as separatists every 5 minutes.

Third problem is that there is no way to remove cores. So you just won civil war as CSA but thanks to the fact USA has cores on you they will attack you every five years for rest of the game.
 
I know people like to hype up the "muh American bloodbath" meme, but if the French had managed to put up any sort of successful defense WW1 would have come early to Europe, the Chassepot and Dreyse rifles being acceptable substitutes for machine guns given their rates of fire
I forgot which battle it was but the last dispatch before a battle was "We are in a chamber pot about to be shat on." So yeah the prussian artillery was absolutely brutal.
 
I forgot which battle it was but the last dispatch before a battle was "We are in a chamber pot about to be shat on." So yeah the prussian artillery was absolutely brutal.
The Dreyse was their rifle. Not that their artillery was bad. Quite the opposite since they were all-steel rifled breechloaders, superior in range and accuracy to the French guns which were a mix of re-bored La Hitte muzleloaders, with a few Reffye 85mm breechloaders which were cast iron with a bronze breech. French shells were also timed detonation with only two ranges, German ones impact-fused. Needless to say, the superior range, accuracy, and killing power (from more reliable fuses) of the Prussian guns let them take French artillery pieces off the board before assaults and then suppress any defenders without fears of counter-battery, which negated the Dreyse's inferior ballistics and effective range compared to the French chassepot.

That said, in infantry-on-infantry fights the German infantry got mauled by the Chassepot in a nasty reversal of their earlier success at Koniggratz. The early battles of Spicheren, Wissembourg, and Woerth are prime examples of such, with the Germans suffering losses equal or marginally better (comparatively) despite mustering numerical and materiel superiority for said battles. Ultimately however it was inept generalship and indecision that cost the French any hope of victory, with a poor defensive strategy at the onset allowing the Prussians to concentrate forces against the main defensive positions, turning it from a static defensive war to one of mobility, greatly favoring the more maneuverable Prussian forces.
 
The Dreyse was their rifle. Not that their artillery was bad. Quite the opposite since they were all-steel rifled breechloaders, superior in range and accuracy to the French guns which were a mix of re-bored La Hitte muzleloaders, with a few Reffye 85mm breechloaders which were cast iron with a bronze breech. French shells were also timed detonation with only two ranges, German ones impact-fused. Needless to say, the superior range, accuracy, and killing power (from more reliable fuses) of the Prussian guns let them take French artillery pieces off the board before assaults and then suppress any defenders without fears of counter-battery, which negated the Dreyse's inferior ballistics and effective range compared to the French chassepot.

That said, in infantry-on-infantry fights the German infantry got mauled by the Chassepot in a nasty reversal of their earlier success at Koniggratz. The early battles of Spicheren, Wissembourg, and Woerth are prime examples of such, with the Germans suffering losses equal or marginally better (comparatively) despite mustering numerical and materiel superiority for said battles. Ultimately however it was inept generalship and indecision that cost the French any hope of victory, with a poor defensive strategy at the onset allowing the Prussians to concentrate forces against the main defensive positions, turning it from a static defensive war to one of mobility, greatly favoring the more maneuverable Prussian forces.
I meant brutal in the sense it absolutely shredded french forces with both quantaty of shells fired and the accuracy of fire.
 
I meant brutal in the sense it absolutely shredded french forces with both quantaty of shells fired and the accuracy of fire.
True, but in my autism I thought you were calling it the Dreyse, since I had made no mention of artillery in my post. And I couldn't resist the chance to sperg out.

EDIT: I would like to add for @Save the Loli that the Battles of Sedan and Metz during the Franco-Prussian War dwarfed the infamous battle at Gettysburg, with the only thing preventing major losses was the fact the entire French army present surrendered before the fighting could begin in earnest. Gravelotte in a single day was almost as bloody as all of Gettysburg and its three days were.
 
Last edited:
So they finally released another dev diary talking about warfare in Vicky 3
TLDR: Where you border enemy there will fronts. You can assign general +divisions .
After that you get order to defend or attack.
Actual fighting works like sieges of forts in EU4.Worst war related part of EU4 HOOOOW EXCITTTIIIING.
dd23_1.png

If you attack you will make dice rolls for what is going to happen and it will give you progress on numerical metter.


You know true frontline warfare became thing only in WW1 78 years after game starts and game only lasts one century, before most wars were won/lost with one or two major battles and armies were not large enough to defend entire border.
 
Last edited:
It’s nice that it at least still has battles in it, so you can construct a mental narrative, and it’s cool that generals can change their behavior based on personality, but the entire “strategic” decision making came down to “Attack” or “Defend.” Against an entire country. In a thing like the Civil War the entire war is a single front with literally no input. It’s complete trash.
 
True, but in my autism I thought you were calling it the Dreyse, since I had made no mention of artillery in my post. And I couldn't resist the chance to sperg out.

EDIT: I would like to add for @Save the Loli that the Battles of Sedan and Metz during the Franco-Prussian War dwarfed the infamous battle at Gettysburg, with the only thing preventing major losses was the fact the entire French army present surrendered before the fighting could begin in earnest. Gravelotte in a single day was almost as bloody as all of Gettysburg and its three days were.
Sorry my main exposure to the Franco-Prussian war is the book the Arms of Krupp (thumbnail review 6/10 every awful thing in the German state 1860-1945 is laid at the feet of Krupp which is sorta accurate in that they were the tail that wagged the dog but also very unfair also the coverage of the Gay Krupp and Junkers was hilarious) which explains why I still, even though i should know better, think of the war in terms of the artillery.

You seem knowledgeable about the war got any good book reccs?

Edit: Also given the role privately held firms played in this time period and yet no mention of them in any dev diary really gets the noggin joggin on what dlc there will be
 
Last edited:
  • Feels
Reactions: millais
Sorry my main exposure to the Franco-Prussian war is the book the Arms of Krupp (thumbnail review 6/10 every awful thing in the German state 1860-1945 is laid at the feet of Krupp which is sorta accurate in that they were the tail that wagged the dog but also very unfair also the coverage of the Gay Krupp and Junkers was hilarious) which explains why I still, even though i should know better, think of the war in terms of the artillery.

You seem knowledgeable about the war got any good book reccs?

Edit: Also given the role privately held firms played in this time period and yet no mention of them in any dev diary really gets the noggin joggin on what dlc there will be
Yeah, that sounds accurate about Krupp from what I've picked up. And no, I'm far from knowledgeable. All that info I talked about was from Wikipedia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJLiautaud
So they finally released another dev diary talking about warfare in Vicky 3
TLDR: Where you border enemy there will fronts. You can assign general +divisions .
After that you get order to defend or attack.
Actual fighting works like sieges of forts in EU4.Worst war related part of EU4 HOOOOW EXCITTTIIIING.
dd23_1.png

If you attack you will make dice rolls for what is going to happen and it will give you progress on numerical metter.


You know true frontline warfare became thing only in WW1 78 years after game starts and game only lasts one century, before most wars were won/lost with one or two major battles and armies were not large enough to defend entire border.
Stop Paradox, it's already dead!
 
So they finally released another dev diary talking about warfare in Vicky 3
TLDR: Where you border enemy there will fronts. You can assign general +divisions .
After that you get order to defend or attack.
Actual fighting works like sieges of forts in EU4.Worst war related part of EU4 HOOOOW EXCITTTIIIING.
dd23_1.png

If you attack you will make dice rolls for what is going to happen and it will give you progress on numerical metter.
That doesn't look like an inherently terrible system, but you'd need the fronts to be only a few provinces large and also be able to influence each other. I always found sneaking encirclements with the old battle system a total pain in the ass.
You know true frontline warfare became thing only in WW1 78 years after game starts and game only lasts one century, before most wars were won/lost with one or two major battles and armies were not large enough to defend entire border.
It could've been done a lot earlier though and basically was in Virginia in the Civil War. The Franco-Prussian War had a clear frontline as well. It's probably better for this time period as a whole even if Paradox's example (Texas) is definitely a poor one.

It's definitely a battle system biased toward WWI/late game wars though. And it'll be especially weird if you're playing an uncivilized power where the battles weren't even remotely close to the Civil War or Franco-Prussian War.
 
I did a "Don't be Cilli" game where the goal is to form any other nation while playing as Cilli, an OPM directly between Croatia and Austria. I immediately no CB'd Herzegovina and while I was taking it, both Bosnia and Ragusa declared war on it, so when I vassalized it I immediately got to take Ragusa and also vassalize Bosnia. Cilli starts as part of Von Hapsburg so getting an alliance with Austria is easy and using it I was able to annex all of Yugoslavia. Austria was a faithful and stronk ally against the Ottomans which I took one Byz and Bulgaria core from so I could vassalfeed the European side of the Ottomans before the 1500s.

I thought, wow that was fun! I'll do that as SERBIA and get the LAZARUS achievement!

6gWedl9.png
(Depicted: Me not having fun).

If you're wondering, no, I did not fuck up Europe. My natural allies as Serbia against the Ottomans was Austria, but Austria refused to ally me, to the point where I had to very slowly (0.04/mo) build up enough favors to buy trust so it would stop fucking rivaling me. My natural ally against Austria was France. Guess how France is doing? That's not even the real France. I don't know what the fuck that is or where it came from but France was totally annexed. Provence was also destroyed at some point because it used to be just Anjou and Sardinia but now Sardinia exists.

Well after sucking Austria's asshole for 50 fucking years I get the ally and guess what? It's ruined. It had the Burgundian inheritance, and Austria, and Bohemia as a PU. It's been in perpetual bankruptcy and when Ottomans wardeced me they didn't honor call to arms because they're at 99 devastation due to rebels. Also, at some point, the Netherlands event fired and Ottomans joined the independence war so that's why the Netherlands is kind-of there. Majorca (the Aragonese islands) has somehow conquered most of Occitania.

Denmark is now Sweden and Pomeranian (???). Finland and Estonia exist. Glascony exists. Avignon is independent. I've never even fucking heard of Bayreuth but that's a thing, so is Nitra.

So now I'm at deadlock with ottomans which SUCKS because they are growing stronger all the time. They just beat up Russia (bad ally, bankrupt to shit) and are at 200k forces. My only hope is to ally Spain, which is not total shit but considers me a rival.
 
Screenshot_20211118_172613.png
Calling the game here.

For the record: At various points I was allied to Ottomans, Poland, Austria, Spain, Portugal, the Timurids (Mughals) and Aq Qoyunlu.

I spent so much time building up to just get the Lazarus achievement that it was early 1700s by the time I could do it. I had an abysmal time trying to get allies, to get those allies to help at all, and then as I built taller Ottomans kept growing which pushed me to conquer all of Serbia.

I accidentally became revolutionary and got the discount French flag and by that point I was so irritated at the time investment that I also went for Guarantor of Peace.

1637253158957.png


After I finally got buff enough to dick the Ottomans I started cycling between France and Ottomans. Russia was the first because Commonwealth and Ottomans both rivaled them and attacked them.

1637253114067.png

Special mentions to Wallachia, my March. I don't know what these guys eat but Wallachia was always loyal, always strong enough to have a full army, and never made stupid decisions. For some reason he was always where I needed him and won several wars by taking the right provinces or joining a losing fight at the last second. They were vassalized in the 1400s and I let them stick around the entire game.
 
Back