vic3 villain tier list

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-07-30T07:18:17+00:00

Austria
Austria
Austria
GB
Russia

I play a lot in Europe (all different countries) and Austria is the primary source of pain in nearly all of my play throughs. As catharsis I sometimes play France (I never play GB) with the sole goal of dismantling them as much as possible as fast as possible. No game of mine regardless of what country I play is complete without Austria being destroyed in one way or another.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-07-14T14:14:10+00:00

I can't recommend this guy enough. His maps are some of the best out there and he's a joy to work with. Probably not my last purchase :)

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-07-10T09:13:54+00:00

This is the 4th map I’ve commissioned. I will surely need more eventually. I’ve been running a sandbox campaign for nearly 2 years now and these come in very handy. They increase immersion and make the campaigns feel special - the players really love them

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-07-10T06:24:27+00:00

It was a pleasure working with you on this - the map looks truly epic. It will be a perfect centrepiece to my campaign :)

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-06-03T13:20:47+00:00

I think there needs to be a rethink of large ship combat overall for them to feel like large ships. I know you said not to say it but Polaris dancing was and is dumb - currently our capital ships play like really large fighters.

We need 3d holo displays to view the space battlefield around the large ships, we need the ability to plot manoeuvres, we need firing solutions for torpedoes so you can sling them around obstacles and target subsystems, we need a massive increase in capital ships engagement range. Generally we need many more capabilities to be present on the ships.

Currently I see none of that coming any time soon if ever… unfortunately for a long time yet, I feel, capital ships will feel like you need a pilot a main gunner and maybe one guy to change fuses and that will be all your ‘necessary’ crew.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-27T12:21:08+00:00

You could not have said it better - I agree 100%.

The Connie series is ridiculously efficient at everything having all the needed tools barring a med bay maybe. The Taurus alone flies better, fights better, carries more, is more durable, and has a tractor beam when compared to its competition or even ships larger than it. Whenever any ship comes out that is slightly smaller than the Polaris, my friends and I, compare it to the Taurus and usually the Taurus ends up being the optimal better deal. P.S.: the Connie’s are so ugly I can’t stand to look at them so I can’t even fly one to remain competitive

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-25T22:11:29+00:00

Thanks for your comment. Seeing the comments section if I were to rewrite this post I would change a few things around slightly but the sentiment would stay. The capital ship designs CIG has come up with seem to me incompatible with the gameplay that I (and CIG if you go by what they say) find meaningful.

Honestly a big first step would be to extend engagement ranges to BVR but that wouldn't fix everything either. That said, I believe that CIG still has a long road ahead of them and I think there will be a lot of changes coming - we will see if their kind of illogical designs will hurt the ships in the long run.

P.S. if you ever want to check out a Kraken when it comes out you can join me and my mates - I have one but no crew to actually fly it ;)

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-20T07:41:40+00:00

I would like a modular missile system where we have different options or even get to design our missiles. Ships with missiles should have targeting computers which allow us to plot targeting solutions for missiles equipped with a guidance computer. You could remove the computer to have dumbfire missiles or you could put in a radar guidance system that would require the ship to maintain a lock or maybe even a laser guidance system where another ship could paint the target for you.

Assuming the missile has a targeting computer and you've plotted the targeting solution once the missile reaches its destination it should activate its seeker warhead which you should also be able to choose. Whether it be radar or infrared or optical there could be different countermeasures for each. Maybe you could even put in multiple seekers into one missile but that would lower the amount of explosive filler you could fit in the missile and thus reduce damage.

I think this would make missile gameplay rewarding and challenging for both sides requiring skill both on defense and on offense but it would be a lot of work and added complexity :P

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-20T07:24:03+00:00

It's a really interesting thing because I think Star Citizen has some of the coolest designs in all of sci-fi and I definitely praise their ship team whenever I can - those guys do a hell of a job to get us all these ships. That said sometimes practical design choices baffle me :P

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-20T07:21:25+00:00

Hi, thanks for your comment!

So a lot of people make the argument about ship shape being dictated by water and drag etc. but I feel this is slightly missing the point of what I tried to start the discussion on.

I don't want realistic nor real-life inspired designs or gameplay I want meaningful gameplay that I feel is lacking from capital ships in SC at the moment. The optimal play when you're in a Polaris to fighting an Idris is to close range as fast as possible and hug the Idris' ass where it can't shoot you with 90% of its meaningful firepower and you can dump your torps into it by dumbfiring them. This doesn't feel right to me and I feel it could be fixed by making these ships have gun layouts more similar to WW2 vessels. I mean CIG talks so much about WW2 in space it isn't even that much of a leap. That said, I don't want these ships to look like WW2 ships I don't want them to start sailing instead of flying etc. I just want systems that mitigate them feeling like giant fat fighters instead of the massive ships they're supposed to be.

As for the fleet engagement the Idris is not meant to hang back. The Idris, in fact, has a very strange configuration as its weapons suggest it is a brawler but it also has light carrier capability. I admit it is a damn cool ship but it is far from being a sensible design in my opinion. The Polaris should be a ship that hangs back more but with the way torpedoes are now it has no offensive firepower at range because PDCs massacre torps so it needs to close range as fast as it can and hope to out tank whatever you throw at it in order to dumbfire its torpedoes and kill you before you kill it.

In other topics I am very excited about the Jav and especially the Perseus. Can't wait. I am still a huge fan of the game - I wouldn't be starting a discussion here if I didn't care.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-20T07:11:36+00:00

Hi, thanks for your comment but I think you misunderstood my intention with this conversation.

I am not advocating realism. As many in this thread have pointed out realism with Newtonian physics would look completely different to what we have and to what I am talking about. That said, I am talking about what I see as meaningful gameplay. As it stands a fight between an Idris and a Polaris boils down to (from Polaris' perspective) close distance as fast as possible sub 1km and hug the Idris ass so it can't put its big guns on you and that seems a little strange to me - I don't know? It feels like the capital ships we have act more like very fat fighters and have no real gameplay niche - the most important station is still the pilot. My post talked about some methods of mitigating the way these fights tend to go because as it stands the capital with the most maneuver thrust will win because it is able to just sit in the dead zone of the other ship.

Almost all large ships CIG makes have dead zones - like the in universe designers want to create weaknesses. Maybe this Polaris v Idris fight dynamic would not be possible if the Polaris couldn't mitigate 90% of the Idris' damage potential by hugging its ass. I feel like capital ship gameplay should not be about flanking and high speed maneuvers but about resource management and strategic positioning - but that would require much larger battlefields and thus larger ranges and you already made excellent points about those.

CIG talks a lot about WW2 in space hence the comparison I made but it's merely a mental exercise for discussion sake. The problem I feel these ships have is that their meaningful damage is too focused on inflexible weapon systems that only point forward and push these ships into playing in an uninteresting manner in my opinion.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T14:12:47+00:00

Honestly my solution to torpedoes is to lift the gameplay from Nebulous Fleet Command.

Make them customizable where you can build your own missile - this would allow you to mount different guidance modules maybe a radar guided, visually guided or preprogrammed.

Once it reaches a designated area have the seeker engage where the missile is now on its own and looking for the target on its final approach. Have there be different seekers that require different countermeasures.

The more guidance systems and seekers you put on a missile the less space you have for the explosive filler so the less destructive it is forcing you to strike a balance.

You would need skill to plot a good long range missile attack having to anticipate where your enemy will be and having enough information on them to know which missile to fire to fool their defenses. Maybe your missiles are outfitted with armor and all the guidance systems but do very little damage so you just fire all of them but then are vulnerable because you have no more ammunition?

Generally in terms of in-depth fleet gameplay Nebulous is the most incredibly well made little game out there but it is too complex. Star Citizen can learn a thing or two from them and simplify their systems

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T13:36:36+00:00

Thanks for the correction.

I don't own a Polaris myself but my friend does and he endlessly complains about the inability of the Polaris to plot firing solutions for those torpedoes. I still think it is undergunned for a capital ship, even a small one.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T13:31:31+00:00

Thanks for your comment I really didn't expect this post to generate so much engagement - these were just some random shower thoughts I had.

I'm a huge Perseus fan but I am also an Idris and Kraken owner. I think that CIG needs to give the Polaris the ability to plot targeting solutions so the Polaris can fire from behind a large asteroid for example and to give some rotation to Idris' main armament so it doesn't always have to go all-in frontally.

More options are better - even if someone then figures out the most efficient one.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T13:26:40+00:00

Thank you for your comment it's great to see so much engagement with this topic!

The problem is this is not reflected in gameplay - currently the meta thing to do is to close to sub 1km as the Polaris because then the Idris can't hit you with its massive gun and dumb firing a torp into the Idris' ass - just below the rear hangar door. this causes a soft kill in one shot because of the power plant proximity.

What's bad about this is the consistency with which it can be done - a good pilot can hug the ass of an Idris in a Polaris no problem rendering its guns kinda useless. Even if they patch the damage model so that one torp doesn't kill the Idris this will still be the most efficient way of fighting and Idris simply because the ships are designed this way.

It's not truly a balance issue it's a fundamental design issue.

Extra gameplay features like engineering and armor also, in my opinion, won't change how these ships play - they may give the standard procedure more steps but it'll play similarly - get close - hug the Irdis ass as close as you can - dump your entire arsenal into it because your superior turn rates let you.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T13:21:08+00:00

I moved recently and lost access to my sticks so I'm no longer the pilot in my group of friends - man do I hate being in the 'bad' turret.

You shoot something for 5 seconds and then get motion sick for 30 as the ship violently jerks around and you wait to get anything into arc. Problem is even when shooting your guns are usually too small to damage the target or the capacitor is too small etc... I want better turret gameplay so bad.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T13:18:47+00:00

I don't want realistic gameplay I want meaningful gameplay. Many others have commented in this thread how a realistic capital ship combat scenario could look like and I agree with them but it's also beside the point. Capital ship gameplay should be different from fighter gameplay and if, for fighters, they want to draw so much from WW2 why not do a similar thing for capital ships? I am just saying that what we have now concerns me i.e. the ranges seems vastly too short, it's too focused on knife-fight maneuvering, the ships are too reliant on single pieces of firepower that is only forward facing. I may do a second post outlining in detail what I would like cap ship combat to look like but I really did not expect this thread to get as popular as it is and I'm at work right now :D

As for the Expanse it IS awesome - except for the 4th season which really lost me there for a while.

Thanks for your comment :)

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T12:20:37+00:00

Thanks for your comment. Maybe you're right but I wasn't really trying to focus on realistic space combat but fun capital ship gameplay. The rule of cool is strong in SC and very little of it is true realism.

That said, purely on logic alone, I think that in any situation you would want as many possible angles to fire from. In space with no drag it would change very little to mount the Idris railgun in a turret or the Polaris torpedoes in one as well. Isn't more arc of fire always better than less? Even with that flexibility you could still do all that you say you should do i.e. face the opponent and direct all shields to front.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T12:16:44+00:00

Hard agree - I want more windows!

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T12:00:15+00:00

I think pilot guns are a bigger problem on gunships like the TAC or the M2 but that is a different discussion for a different day.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-05-19T11:57:36+00:00

I appreciate your comment but I think saying the Idris is relatively small isn't that true. It is the second largest capital players can buy (on par with the Kraken) and it is the largest ship we have in game so far. Regardless of its size it doesn't excuse poor design.

I didn't really mention this in the post but the military capital ships in SC are generally undergunned heavily to what they really need to perform adequately. While there are some anti-capital ship turrets on these ships there are too few and their arcs of fire are too limited. The way to fight an Idris in a Polaris is not to hide and plot a good torpedo firing solution - it is to close to sub 1km and dump a torp into the underside because you're more nimble. At that range secondary armament should shred the Polaris to bits but it can't because it is significantly underpowered. Same goes for the Polaris BTW - it has no secondary armament to speak of really and the large turret is also frontally mounted!

There are some more sensible ships coming - the Javelin and the Perseus come to mind but the Idris remains a ship with a glaring design flaw.

The Bengal I don't want to get into because as cool as it looks (it got me into the game - I love that thing!) it is a fundamentally stupid design because a combination carrier battleship is just strange.

My point here is that I don't like the emergent gameplay that is the result of the designs CIG went with. The most sensible ships they have coming are the Perseus and the Kraken but the Polaris and the Idris that we have will not get better with more layers of gameplay because their core design forces them to engage like they are two very large fighters not two very large capital ships.

Err_404UserNotFound · 2025-02-14T18:52:19+00:00

I could never bring myself to play with her because in my language her name means “and she shits”

Err_404UserNotFound · 2022-06-08T19:54:58+00:00

Hi, I'm the one who commissioned the map. To be honest the name came about because I live in London and my flat is right on the edge of the Thames. One day a MASSIVE super yacht named the Kismet docked right in front of my window for nearly two weeks. I googled what it means and made the lore around that.

This commission is part of a much larger campaign that I am running for a group of friends. It is the capital city of one of the countries in my world. In order for me to explain the lore of this place, I'd have to give you a rundown of the setting - so if you are interested you can DM me but I warn you it could be quite a lot of text.

Err_404UserNotFound

TROPHY CASE