Crushing this pesky rival who would dare assassinate your heir in a swift military victory could inspire and unite the empire and show that you are not a crumbling dying "Sick Man". But, you can fix these issues by winning proving your strength. Let's say your empire is fractured, people are upset you're losing power and prestige on the world stage, both rich and poor in some regions even look at independence then your heir is assassinated by a terrorist group that is linked to a neighbouring state you've squabbled with for years and keeps growing in power. However, I would also like to see scenarios where it might be beneficial to trigger the war. I don't want to see an event pop up on June 29th of 1914 telling me an Austrian Archduke died yesterday in Sarajevo and I'm about to be at war with Austria and Germany in a little over a month. Perhaps Germany and Austria are rivals and Russia chooses Bulgaria over Serbia, Romania honours its secret pact and a colonial dispute in Africa keeps the British and French split causes an alliance of Germany, Britain, Italy, Serbia and Romania. Not to mention players of the war could easily be different if things had gone differently. There's a reason some call the July Crisis the greatest disaster in European history. In fact the Great War should be avoided but likely happen. How the war started historically was such an odd series of event it really shouldn't be railroaded to start a certain way. Like some have said here, the Great War will likely happen though how and when should really be different. But just like in HoD, AI will probably prefer avoiding such a dangerous scenario.Īlso, Vic1 and Vic2 also qualified as "The game is not about war". And it's possible that a World War triggers earlier, or maybe even that there will be more than one World War in a playthrough if the world develops in such a direction. WW1 will most certainly be there, and likely still connected the the Crisis mechanic introduced by Vic2:HoD. Here you'll probably prefer avoiding them (this is the period when wars started to turn detrimental for powerful nations). In CK and EU for example, much of your gameplay revolves around preparing for wars, making wars possible, and making sure you profit from the winnings. It means that the game is not designed in such a way that war and conquest are everything you think about. It doesn't mean that there are no wars, that you won't have to fight in wars, or that the war system will be weak. I see people often think that it means "War is a minor feature" or that it doesn't matter. I feel people are reading the whole "This game is not about war" in the very wrong way. Or a new vastly improved world war system. I hope the old system actually makes it back in. Not one big brutal climactic era-defining war, but like 5-6 superpower slapfests every few years. because they started too early (1870s instead of 1900s I think?). The only problem was, there were too many world wars in Victoria 2. The winners would win a lot, the losers would face enormous pain (and revolutions), but both sides would be devastated. I think it drastically lowered the cost of adding more wargoals, as well as raised the surrender thresholds so nations would sometimes fight to the end. Unlike the rest of the game where non-colonial conquests were very rare, slow and time consuming, a world war would instead create a free-for-all with massive change in territores, including in homelands. A crisis would create tensions, that tension could blow over into open war, and by late game if too many great powers participated in that one war it would automatically turn into a full blown brutal world war. Victoria 2 had "international crisis" system. How detailed it will be, that's another matter. Considering WW1 forms the "endgame crisis" of the series, there is no doubt that it will happen.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |