Also, conquests by anything below a regional power should generate much less infamy, and the infamy pop scaling vs. The rate at which infamy is both gained and lost is too high. Infamy shoots up to problematic levels after a small conquest, but then goes back down to zero within a few short years.
I agree with OP that infamy is actually a pretty reasonable system to use for V3 and that the biggest problem is that it's scaled very poorly. And I also think there needs to be more fine-tuning on Infamy gains from and against unrecognized powers and modifiers from population, but I'll admit I'm not sure exactly what that tuning would entail. I do think that coalition wars need to be more punishing than they are currently becoming a pariah should be a death sentence, but it should also require a lot more conquest than it does in the game as-is. Some say that the Infamy system is a step backwards from EU4's Aggressive Expansion, but I don't agree: I think part of the difference between the two games is that Victoria 3 represents a more global time period, where mechanics like localized (especially culture or religion-based) infamy or coring ranges don't have a place. For example, if you puppet Persia as Russia, there's no way to give them back their Omani land if you force Russia to release Poland, there's no way to add Prussia's Polish cores to this state. Since Protectorating is the only way to conquer a nation through high relations, and you can only declare war on countries through low relations, if you make progress towards turning a nation into a Protectorate and then they roll Defend the Borders, your options are to either start damaging relations (which will take several years to get low enough to declare war, which is less infamy-efficient) or hope they roll something else (which, for certain types of nations, might take a very long time).Īnother issue is the lack of ability to feed your vassals, even for their own homeland states. This isn't necessarily a problem by itself, but when combined with other mechanics makes for unfun gameplay. Some other issues are that nations can (and, usually, do) randomly roll the "Defend the Borders" strategy which prevents them from being turned to protectorates. For example, in Vicky, you can force a war opponent to release nations who you can protectorate, puppet, and annex for minimal Infamy but the cost to force a war enemy to release a nation is a flat 35 and not modified by size (meaning that it's always more efficient to release the biggest nation, which in my opinion takes away player choice and makes the game less fun than it could be). Many of these systems also work similarly in Victoria 3, but there are several issues that either make similar gameplay in Victoria III unintuitive or inconsistent, and others are impossible for seemingly no good reason. These mostly revolve around the choice of whether to take land in peace deals without claims, or waiting to fabricate claims or complete missions that grant permanent ones releasing, feeding, and annexing vassal states cycling your conquests in different regions to manage aggressive expansion and in higher-level games, cycling coalition wars to maximize conquest efficiency. EU4 has, in my opinion, an excellent gameplay loop when it comes to conquest, where different tactics can strike a balance between speed of conquest, power costs, aggressive expansion management, and complexity. While I understand the games have different design goals, compare Victoria's "conquest loop" to Europa Universalis IV's (being, in my opinion, the most similar Paradox game to Victoria III). Making a game fun is not necessarily a clear thing and I think the devs have done a good job, considering the game at launch was practically a tech demo for the economy system. And, no, this isn't a "pointless whinging" post.
0 kommentar(er)
