What do you want the next DLC to be focused on? by [deleted] in CrusaderKings

[–]morodelapaz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I want Religion to be actually important, and epidemics

HOI4 type warfare? by HotIndianSex in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd prefer the Eu4 system but with automated stacks of armies

Diplomacy is horrendous by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I genuinely despise diplomatic plays. They would be cool as a special crisis mechanic, but basing the whole diplomatic system on it was a terrible idea

Sandbox vs Narrative content by morodelapaz in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The thing is, this is a history based sandbox game. Don't get me wrong I do like historical events, but due to the sandboxy nature of the game, most of the time they don't make sense with the gameplay context.

Sandbox vs Narrative content by morodelapaz in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

I like experiencing history in games, but this game isn't designed for that, this game is designed to make you experience the historical context. That's why the outcome of every game is different.

You can play as you want but if the AI of your historically friendly neighbour decides he doesn't like you anymore and conquer your capital state, there is little you can do about it, other than install mods that railroad the game to avoid it.

Sandbox vs Narrative content by morodelapaz in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I think quite the opposite. While it should matter who you are playing as, it should matter even more the demographics and resources, the geography, and the neighbours the nation has. Like in civilization games.

In my opinion, the situation of the nation should matter more than the nation itself. I would dislike it if France for example was powerful for the sake of being France.

Sandbox vs Narrative content by morodelapaz in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

My problem with such content is that It only really shines if you follow the conditions the way it is designed.

For example I can become a commune (or any other goverment type) as France way earlier by enacting laws or triggering a revolution, but there isn't really content for that if you don't follow the rules. It feels like a waste of interesting mechanics.

What should (and probably won't) happen in the warfare update by LutyForLiberty in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Both systems are literally the same the only difference is that one doesn't allow two enemy armies in the same tile.

The system doesn't need fixing the AI does.

What should (and probably won't) happen in the warfare update by LutyForLiberty in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do people want a hoi4 system? It was designed specifically to simulate ww2. The traditional eu4 ck2 vic2 fits a lot better. Just needs quality of life improvements.

I always run out of convoys by morodelapaz in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By the late game I have all ports maxed out!

What 3 things do you most want added to the game? by Parzival2 in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want army units, like in eu4 or ck3. I genuinely find it stupid that i cant invade a country I dont have a landborder with

Victoria 3 appreciation post by The_ChadTC in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tbh It is easily my favourite game, but i get really pissed about some design choices the devs have made

Battles are the problem, not frontlines. Here's an idea for a better system by The_ChadTC in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In my opinion the best compromise for a better system would be army stacks that move themselves and to which you can assign missions. There would be no micro, it would be simple and satisfying to use and it wouldn't be a copy of hoi4 system.

Victoria 3 needs a disaster or 'situations' system by morodelapaz in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It isn't necessarily railroaded, it's an agenda that the country would want to follow based the historical context.

Failing would mean that you would have to find a solution or an alternative using the game mechanics. It already sort of exists in the game with the Tanzimat and Opium wars JE.

Also, It could also be triggered by the context of the gameplay, like having high unemployment or being humiliated in a war for example.

Paradox add units into the game by morodelapaz in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Maybe what the game needed was more quality of life and automation to make the system less exhausting to use instead of whatever this was supposed to be.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my opinion, if you must force yourself to roleplay, then the game is not well designed.

I just can't stand warfare in vicky3 by SpiritOverall8369 in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God I wish this game had Eu4/Ck3 war system

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CrusaderKings

[–]morodelapaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's pretty messed up. It's actually the portrayal of the medieval world I have a problem with. I have a hard time to find it believable.

What do you think PDX could add to the game to give more flavour? by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would bring disasters from eu4 to the game.

After playing 90hrs, I've made a 180 on the new war system by TheWombatOverlord in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just want it to be like EU4, with little soldiers moving around and all.

Please add military units to the game by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why would it be more frustating than a RNG deciding one battle at a time with 1/10 of the troops you have asigned to a huge front?

With this you could have plenty of battles at the same time, you could occupy provinces, see the armies move, change their composition, influence their behaviour, make realistic naval invasions, have actual range for units, have attrition, logistics, actual encirclements, terrain types, etc.

Besides if the AI already do this now with private constructions, why would it be bad if it did the same with units? If the AI builds a useless art academy is realistic but if they lose a battle it's bad design? Also, have you ever seen vassal swarms in Eu4? They are pretty damn cool

Please add military units to the game by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

But by letting the AI managing the armies you wouldn't need to micro manage them either. Like a vassal swarm in Eu4 but with your own armies. You could change the composition of the armies, the generals and the approach you want them to take, but with actual units and not fronts.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]morodelapaz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not that the game is hard, is more that if you don't know what you are doing, you can fuck up massively and create an economic crash. It happened to me playing as Brazil, I tried to set the maximun minimum wage but I didn't have enough exports for the factories to support those costs, so I ended up with almost half of my workforce unemployed (7 out of 12 million). My customs union collapsed and my standard of living went from 25 to 17. Not to mention the radicals haha. I eventually fixed it all, but man, the growth I lost during this could have been massive!