• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Eichenthal

First Lieutenant
41 Badges
Feb 18, 2010
221
29
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • March of the Eagles
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Surviving Mars
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
Hello everyone!

Paradox strategy titles are great due to two things mainly. The first is that they provide a wide, complex simulator of a realistic environment which is basis to countless "what if" scenarios. The second is that they achieve this utilizing brilliant mechanisms that amaze through their easy to understand yet superb fitting way.

While the probably best grand strategy game of all times probably would be a hybrid between VII and HOI3, they both do yet lack a proper implementation of a real market with local, demand/supply determined prices and real trade, based upon comparative advantages.

Being an economist myself, I sat down and thought of a relatively way to implement such economic realism in a Victoria 2 like system.

This (Version 2.0) gives resume to these thoughts and some other ideas, of how the Victoria series could get even better in my eyes.

Dear devs, modders and gamers, please comment!

What is your idea of VIII ?




yours, Eichenthal

Unauthorised link deleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with a local market model is of course that it requires a lot more computing power to work. You could probably not get it to run on a commonly available computer at a reasonable speed. This could change in the future. Another question is whether or not it would be fun to play that game. Personally, I would find such a simulation awesome to muck around in if it was well balanced (it would be really really hard to bakance). But would I find it fun to secure a coal supply to my factories (or any other input)? Would it even be feasibly possible for the user to understand how such a thing could be secured without running a week-long analysis of the various production and market chains within the game? If not, that would not be fun. At least in V2, the system is simple enough so that you can get a basic idea of what went wrong if your factories lack inputs.
 
well, actually, it shound not be too hard to understand, given that the info required is easily accessable, imho. Think of map filters for regional prices for every good and the like...

of course any more more complex economic model would require (Much?) more computing power, but I think that this overestimated as imho many things like wage and interest rate adjustments are not needed on daily, but maybe only monthly or even yearly basis.

Yet you commented on THE one feature that (in my eyes) would make this game MUCH better, and which I would happily sacrifice A LOT of game speed.
 
That would be awesome, but at the same time it would be impossible to purely simulate a 19th century society. Even if you got close, the standards would be raised far too high for it to be an enjoyable game, as Maginor said. Although, if it were to be released, I wouldn't be able to help myself. :)
 
First suggestion, I dont think districts within counties are needed, if each province has that many districts. Some degree of abstraction is necessary to make it playable and fun. But thse suggestions are great.

I would like more diplomacy options, to interact with economy, also international crises, demanding things before war, secret pacts and alliances. Also, colonization could be improved a lot, military also, and a weather system would be good. More historical plausibility and events.
 
hmm yes, well, a weather system would certainly add a lot of atmosphere and flavour... but I would make improvements elsewhere first.

I decided to add the district level in this podpuouri of ideas due to the urbanization mechanism mainly, as an urban area has NO RGO and will be represented as "urban" on the map. Of course, an introduction of counties would be a step in the right direction....


btw: does anyone know a nice free space I could (free of charge) upload the updated PDF to, since the one I used above is no longer available?
 
i would like loads more events like an event for the russo-japanese war or mabye colonial events that give diffrent countries bonuses for colonizeing diffrent areas and an event to re create the roman empire. it would also be nice to see improvements to naval combat cos ive never seen a naval battle give more than 0.5 for war score.
 
i would like loads more events like an event for the russo-japanese war or mabye colonial events that give diffrent countries bonuses for colonizeing diffrent areas and an event to re create the roman empire. it would also be nice to see improvements to naval combat cos ive never seen a naval battle give more than 0.5 for war score.

Naval war score is the blockade. If your blockading, you've won the navy game. I think it would be a bit out of control if you could get 25% warscore from navy battles and then 20% more from the blockade after you've won.
 
you saw a naval battle score over 0.1 ???

and yes, while the sandbox idea might satisfy some, others would like a more deterministic approach. I personally am quite impressed of the balancing act PX pulled off regarding that matter. And quite happy. Historical outcomes are favoured ingame especially when they are plausible, not just because it actually happened that way IRL.
 
i would also like to have a starting scenerio in victoria (like 1861 in AHD) in about 1910 so that africa is all covered be the colonial powers.
it would also be nice if i didnt have to occupy all of spain to take the phillipnes of them as japan.
 
Last edited:
and yes, while the sandbox idea might satisfy some, others would like a more deterministic approach. I personally am quite impressed of the balancing act PX pulled off regarding that matter. And quite happy. Historical outcomes are favoured ingame especially when they are plausible, not just because it actually happened that way IRL.

I don't notice historical outcomes favored or anything, seems to be quite a bit of things that could not have happened in real life, or were very unlikely to happen.
 
what if war score would not be capped at 100?

Speaking of that, I was always curious what would the war score be if 2 countries completely occupied each other...

It's capped at 100% to represent total victory: 100 is when you have occupied all the provinces of all your enemies, so no further gains are possible.
 
I don't notice historical outcomes favored or anything, seems to be quite a bit of things that could not have happened in real life, or were very unlikely to happen.

that is because they are not favored due to them beeing wahta actually happened, but e.g. because of realistic game concepts like naval range etc.

why? Only reason would be to push the warscore from battles... so you could get a solid 125%. Above that is stupid to have I mean you can't have blockades, you don't have allies to occupy and no nothing.

obviously, letting the overall cap go would only make much sense if you would drop the 25% WS from battles cap, too...
 
I guess if the occupation of all enemy teritory gives 100 WS and getting all your teritory occupied by the enemy takes 100 WS, it would be 0 overall. Add battles and blockaded ports, et voila. Me thinks. Never tried it ;)

But if you occupy all of the enemy, and they only occupy some of you, you still have 100 warscore(though, admittedly, in my experience, this is limited to an Indian minor capturing one province of the British Empire while having its entire country occupied; not sure what would happen if the proportion were much higher)