Wouldn't it be great if we could control tax in every state individually in order to encourage internal POP migration? I feel the game really lacks extra mechanics to influence your POPs.
Proposal(s) for Victoria 3
- Thread starter Pellaken
- Start date
-
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.
Or rather, indirect, specific methods of influencing your pops? That could mean a whole lot of micromanagement necessary to make things work...
I wouldn't mind it. There's not nearly enough stuff to do during peacetime at the moment.
I prefer high-level mechanics that are governed by low-level calculations. Yes on there being tax rates in-game encouraging internal POP migration- No thanks, I'll let the Computer worry about the exact rate.
The game is one of my favorite paradox games, there is not that much to be done to make it better.
But what i would like to see is a perfected trade, economy and politics,
I would like to see economical crisises, there were many of them in the 19th century.
I would like to see the sliders perfected, now you can set tarrifs and taxes to highest and it barley affects anything.
The taxes and tarrifs does not work well in this game.
But what i would like to see is a perfected trade, economy and politics,
I would like to see economical crisises, there were many of them in the 19th century.
I would like to see the sliders perfected, now you can set tarrifs and taxes to highest and it barley affects anything.
The taxes and tarrifs does not work well in this game.
Reworked global economy, so that you buy most from your neighbours, etc., and can embargo. Also more resources per area is a MUST. Just looking at how some coastal provinces in Norway just produce timber, and not lots of fish as well is a pain.
A button which sets all armies to hunt rebels and not (practicallity).
I also suggest:
Army areas. You group your territory into different army "constituencies" based on how you want them. In these constituencies you select a capital, and you can build army per army area you've made, making it easier to build armies the way you want 'em. Also a button in the army viewer which would send it back to it's capital/base.
And most important:
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEASe let us annex single provinces...
I) You can't get historically accurate borders without it
II) You can't just get your cores and not a whole region without it
III) Flavour and strategic reasons.
IV) Makes game more historical and realistic.
I know supposedly the factories are a problem, but you could just choose which to keep, or you can rework the factory system all-together in which factories are located in 1 province. This is also more realistic and makes for amazing gameplay.
Crossing my fingers for Vic 3 Paradox, sincerely loyal fan.
PS: Can anyone like make a compliation of all suggestions in the main post or something? IT would help the developers a lot I think, also it coudl be noted how many suggested something or approved of an idea. I can do it if nobody else will lol
A button which sets all armies to hunt rebels and not (practicallity).
I also suggest:
Army areas. You group your territory into different army "constituencies" based on how you want them. In these constituencies you select a capital, and you can build army per army area you've made, making it easier to build armies the way you want 'em. Also a button in the army viewer which would send it back to it's capital/base.
And most important:
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEASe let us annex single provinces...
I) You can't get historically accurate borders without it
II) You can't just get your cores and not a whole region without it
III) Flavour and strategic reasons.
IV) Makes game more historical and realistic.
I know supposedly the factories are a problem, but you could just choose which to keep, or you can rework the factory system all-together in which factories are located in 1 province. This is also more realistic and makes for amazing gameplay.
Crossing my fingers for Vic 3 Paradox, sincerely loyal fan.
PS: Can anyone like make a compliation of all suggestions in the main post or something? IT would help the developers a lot I think, also it coudl be noted how many suggested something or approved of an idea. I can do it if nobody else will lol
Last edited:
- 1
I btw have a strong feeling that in future games we will see POPs represented at the regional level instead of the provincial level. While not necessarily bad thing, it will allow for much better preformance for one, I do hope they will include dynamic regions. Mainly to allow minor (historical) border changes to take place. It would simply be a matter of assigning a certain propotion of the regional POPs to each province (which may be necessary for RGOs to work out anyway). If a province is taken either the state is split (like in V2), or the province is attached to another region (if, for example, only a small portion of province is taken).
I would also hope that they would abandon the binary owned/not owned province status. It is really limiting. Letting other states have a stake in certain provinces would not only represent colonisation and economic concessions very well, it would also much better represent border conflicts (of which there were plenty!)
Though this seems unlikely as from what I can tell the Clausewitz engine makes it impossible.
Dumping the binary system would however also make insurrections for more meaningful and interesting. For example divide a province into 5 sections: military infrastructure, transport infrastructure, RGOs, cities and nature. Each fulfills a different function and rebels would slowely try to take over all of it. The more control rebels have over each aspect the less benefit the nation gets from it. The player has to assign military units to a region to keep it under control. By simple sliders (on regional level) the player can set priorities on what should be defended. With a higher priority the more influence they will get in each aspect. Assigning more units to a region will make gaining influence of course easier, but also be more costly. Of course, each units assigned will take more attrition and will also cost more upkeep.
In my humble opinion this will make rebellions far more interesting. No more endless stack hunting, but instead having to strategise and prioritise. Not to mention that it represents asymmetrical warfare (Boer Wars, Aceh War) much be than I've seen in any Paradox (or other strategy) game before. So please Paradox, consider it!
I would also hope that they would abandon the binary owned/not owned province status. It is really limiting. Letting other states have a stake in certain provinces would not only represent colonisation and economic concessions very well, it would also much better represent border conflicts (of which there were plenty!)
Though this seems unlikely as from what I can tell the Clausewitz engine makes it impossible.
Dumping the binary system would however also make insurrections for more meaningful and interesting. For example divide a province into 5 sections: military infrastructure, transport infrastructure, RGOs, cities and nature. Each fulfills a different function and rebels would slowely try to take over all of it. The more control rebels have over each aspect the less benefit the nation gets from it. The player has to assign military units to a region to keep it under control. By simple sliders (on regional level) the player can set priorities on what should be defended. With a higher priority the more influence they will get in each aspect. Assigning more units to a region will make gaining influence of course easier, but also be more costly. Of course, each units assigned will take more attrition and will also cost more upkeep.
In my humble opinion this will make rebellions far more interesting. No more endless stack hunting, but instead having to strategise and prioritise. Not to mention that it represents asymmetrical warfare (Boer Wars, Aceh War) much be than I've seen in any Paradox (or other strategy) game before. So please Paradox, consider it!
given every single paradox GS has used this system, i really dont see vicky of all things, being the last on the current clauswitz cycle, being the one ot do something so drastic and pointlessly complex.
Then worst things about Vict II are:
Its far too complex you don't understand what you are really doing and how you can change things and cant see any effects of your decisions.
The whole supply and production aspect of the game is a real pain
The graphics are sub-par.
Small nations still do not matter a damn, you have all these massive countries as allies and cant do anything to affect them - and you cant join them either because they arent interested.
So these are the matters I would like to see changed in any new game. I love playing the game and find it one of the better Paradox games they have done but due to all the above you just cannot get anywhere in it. CK2 and EU4 are far better for actually being able to grow your nations but they aren't half as interesting a time period as that of Victoria. Heart of Iron is just too limited a game for me - its nice to recreate some of the interesting battles in the scenarios. But I have never felt like refighting WW2 - it just goes against the grain once you have changed even one small aspect of WW2 the rest of the war then just seems meaningless to me. Actually EU:Rome is their most promising game so far out of all of them and the one they should develop next IMO - some really good ideas in there.
Its far too complex you don't understand what you are really doing and how you can change things and cant see any effects of your decisions.
The whole supply and production aspect of the game is a real pain
The graphics are sub-par.
Small nations still do not matter a damn, you have all these massive countries as allies and cant do anything to affect them - and you cant join them either because they arent interested.
So these are the matters I would like to see changed in any new game. I love playing the game and find it one of the better Paradox games they have done but due to all the above you just cannot get anywhere in it. CK2 and EU4 are far better for actually being able to grow your nations but they aren't half as interesting a time period as that of Victoria. Heart of Iron is just too limited a game for me - its nice to recreate some of the interesting battles in the scenarios. But I have never felt like refighting WW2 - it just goes against the grain once you have changed even one small aspect of WW2 the rest of the war then just seems meaningless to me. Actually EU:Rome is their most promising game so far out of all of them and the one they should develop next IMO - some really good ideas in there.
Last edited:
I agree that is drastically different than anything they have done before, but I disagree that it is pointlessly complex. Rebel hunting is a completely pain as it currently stands, and I am yet to discover how it is fun in anyway. It needs to change. I am all ears for better suggestions though.
I think they´re really fitting for the time period. An 3d map just wouldn´t recreate the feeling good enough.
And they damn well shouldn´t be able to do much. I don´t want to see Uruguay being a #1 superpower in 1936. Most countries have possibilities to a certain point, but the expansion possibilities of CKII and EUIV simply make no sense in this time period. And some guy was able to conquer more than half of the world as Krakow, so... XD
really? See, if that was the case, i doubt this game would still have a semi-active forum. It's pretty clear that this is just lying because you personally dont understand the game.
It could be better but its economics, if you cant handle it well let the AI do it for you
Eh. it fits the period, just like the ck2 and eu4 ones fit it and HOI IV fits its period.
why should they? Why would A isolationist belgium that doesnt go colonize africa deserve to stand up with the giants? Why should serbia be able tio go "hey russia do this and this!". Wanna matter to the great powers? become a secondary power or a great power yourself. thats what it was like in the period,
so making it be even more complex is the solution. lets just ignore your idea instead.
How about we don't and you actually answer my question. What would you propose?
My idea might add some more complexion, I feel its added depth far outweighs its added complexity. My suggestion is very simply having the player move a military unit into a region and then having him use sliders to select which objectives he wishes to achieve against the insurgents. Military objective, transportation objectives (i.e. efficiency of moving through provinces), economic objectives (protecting RGO output) or population objectives (decreases militancy), with more soldiers being more effective.
It adds a bit of depth to rebellions and gives you something to strategise with. Instead of mindlessly waiting for rebels to pop up who will mindlessly run around and either never pose a real threat, or be completely invincible. Lets try to make Victoria 3 a bit better game in that regard shall we.
My idea might add some more complexion, I feel its added depth far outweighs its added complexity. My suggestion is very simply having the player move a military unit into a region and then having him use sliders to select which objectives he wishes to achieve against the insurgents. Military objective, transportation objectives (i.e. efficiency of moving through provinces), economic objectives (protecting RGO output) or population objectives (decreases militancy), with more soldiers being more effective.
It adds a bit of depth to rebellions and gives you something to strategise with. Instead of mindlessly waiting for rebels to pop up who will mindlessly run around and either never pose a real threat, or be completely invincible. Lets try to make Victoria 3 a bit better game in that regard shall we.
my proposal is we keep the same map system that wont needlessly be absolutly different from every other game paradox has ever made (including the ones Vicky 3 would be made ot mega campaign with)just because you personally dont like it.
unless you dont want new players to understand the game without hours of tutorial and guides
Most of what Victoria 2 is lacking is diplomacy, I hope that anything in the game(your suggestions about rebels too) will be connected with dynamic diplomacy, for example you can threat a nation or a rebel group in a foreign country to stop or support them. Victoria 2 should not have only normal country playable, even rebels or non-existant country should be(but the player would limited powers). But you can´t play small country without enhanced internal affairs. This increase replaybility(Victoria 2 usually lacks of country unlike Eu4 or other games)
Victoria 2 is lacking guide so is natural that for the people it seems hard, if we had some then the game would be not harder than EU4 or at least I hope.
Have regional pops would only help with migration system and would give the possibility to have a lot of province in strategical areas without make the game unplayable for the lag.
Last edited:
That is hardly adressing any of my points, now is it?
Let me try again: Do you find that the current rebel system in V2 (or any other Paradox game for that matter) offers a fun and rewarding experience? If yes, fine. If not, what would you propose to do about it?
Also did you understand the system I was proposing? If yes, then why would it take anyone 'hours of tutorial and guides' to understand? If not, then how can you judge it?
Let me try again: Do you find that the current rebel system in V2 (or any other Paradox game for that matter) offers a fun and rewarding experience? If yes, fine. If not, what would you propose to do about it?
Also did you understand the system I was proposing? If yes, then why would it take anyone 'hours of tutorial and guides' to understand? If not, then how can you judge it?
I wish there was way more diplomatic options... Money gifts, land trading, etc. Embargos especially, make your sphere and yourself not sell to who you are embargoing.
I also wish there were way more pop interaction via NFs. Making people resettle where you want, harder assimilation, etc.
Also wish militancy was swapped for something like "satisfaction". Say you annex Alsace-Lorraine, the German pops would be very satisfied, while the French would most likely not, and just have many more layers for this like agreeing on politics etc. Just making it possible to do more with your country would be really great. Say Soviet should be able to do population transfers and all crazy shiz as they did IRL, if this is limited to dictatorships or not it will have to be decided.
I also wish there were way more pop interaction via NFs. Making people resettle where you want, harder assimilation, etc.
Also wish militancy was swapped for something like "satisfaction". Say you annex Alsace-Lorraine, the German pops would be very satisfied, while the French would most likely not, and just have many more layers for this like agreeing on politics etc. Just making it possible to do more with your country would be really great. Say Soviet should be able to do population transfers and all crazy shiz as they did IRL, if this is limited to dictatorships or not it will have to be decided.
im pretty sure the french pops who care go to nationalism movements