alexametrics
Game News

Casualty rates in Vic 2 battles can't be present in Vic 3 players say

Published: 03:16, 30 December 2021
Paradox Interactive
Soldiers get the love of the masses, Generals get the glory
Soldiers get the love of the masses, Generals get the glory

Victoria 2 was a grand strategy marvel. Though a refreshing change of pace from pure warmongering, its battle casualties leave something to be desired.

If you are someone who is obsessed with details, there should be something that bothered you in every Victoria II playthrough. Namely the ridiculous amount of casualties, one suffers in a battle.

Too often are there battles where an entire army of 80k+ men gets completely wiped out, which in real life never happened. Every second battle is a recreation of Cannae, when in reality most units, especially ones with less training and of less quality, were prone to lose morale and flee the battle, before getting decimated up to 90%.

Besides casualties from battles, which are already greatly exaggerated, another thing that must be mentioned is the cause of said casualties. It was not in a battle that the majority of soldiers died during this time period, historically. Rather, their causes of death were widespread diseases and poor medical practice and tools of field doctors.

Paradox Interactive Victoria 3 - Spanish troops Mobilizing for war Victoria 3 - Spanish troops Mobilizing for war

Luckily, it seems that Paradox are moving the game in this direction, with the attrition mechanic. However, just this won't be enough. A change from the Victoria 2 battles is needed. After all, who would be left to rule if every battle is as bloody and gruesome as the battle of Cannae?

Latest Articles
Most Popular