Colonial regions, conversion of religion and culture from EU4 and dynamic regions (Dynamic regions would be ideal for Organization of US territories and admission of the US territories as states plus it would be ideal for the Canadian Confederation)
-
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.
EUIII was hideous.
And actually from my experience modding maps, 3D elements are not that hard to create (so a heightmap), and provide you with a lot more tools to make things look unique. That, and the terrain mode can actually be used to see things such as mountains and rivers more accurately. EUIV looks beautiful on a good PC, qwhereas Vicky 2 and EUIII and HoI3 are all disgusting to look at in this day and age in anything other than political mode.
If you disagree then you can keep playing Vicky 2 or use a blank heightmap for Vicky 3, but I think a lot of people will be very disappointed if Paradox revert back to 2D for the latter.
Last edited:
This is exactly the way I feel as well. I just hope it will be more than just an "upgrade" to EUIV graphics. I hope it really expands on diplomacy, economy etc to weigh up for the horrible visuals.
I do hope that Vicky3 removes the absurd and stupid restrictions put on the player in Vicky2, they just made no sense at all.
Some examples include no renaming ability for ships or brigades, no ability to break the truce (even at the cost of infamy like in EU3/EU4), ridiculous gamey bonuses to migration in USA and Brazil, no ability to demand individual provinces (forced to demand only full states) in peace, et cetra.
Some examples include no renaming ability for ships or brigades, no ability to break the truce (even at the cost of infamy like in EU3/EU4), ridiculous gamey bonuses to migration in USA and Brazil, no ability to demand individual provinces (forced to demand only full states) in peace, et cetra.
Immigration and even include nations such as the California and Texas Republics and also rise of a super power
Did you even play Vicky II? California and Texas were both in the game from the start(Texas as an Independent and California as tags).
I'll go with something rather controversial here (though I've already commented on the suggestions for Vicky III forum on the Vicky II forum).
I'd actually argue that the game could do with a lesser focus on economics. Or at least, a lesser focus on resource-based economics that dominates the game as it is. Firstly, I think the focus on this can lead to a lack of concentration in other economic areas (as people have mentioned, issues such as inflation, trade and currency) and leads to an inaccurate depiction of the resources produced by some nations. The fact that single provinces are limited to one resource leads to an odd situation where Iran in 1836 has to import most of its food supplies (whereas even after two centuries of enormous population growth, Iran imports approximately 15% of its wheat).
What would I do about this? Well, firstly I'd take food out of the resource equation. It can be safely assume that almost all provinces in the period were food producers alongside the production of consumer goods or industrial materials. While there were certainly nations that suffered a critical lack of this resource during the 19th century (such as China) I feel like this could be be handled better with a different mechanism. Unfortunately, I cannot think of one, so perhaps it is a bit poor of me to offer criticism without thinking of a potential solution.
One area that definitely needs improvement is diplomacy. More should be done to emphasise the somewhat ephemeral nature of alliances between the great powers after 1815 and before the 1890s. Until the German-Austrian and Franco-Russian alliances, alliances in Europe tended not to be too strong or long lasting. While Britain and France were allies during the Crimean War, they were for much of the century competitors. Italy's alliance with France was easily forgotten about after the task of liberating part of Northern Italy was completed (and it became apparent that France would not liberate the rest of it). Great Powers going into alliances without clear objectives such as contain Russia or defeat Austria weren't really a feature of the period 1815-1880. I feel like this needs to be far better represented in Vicky III, along with many other aspects of diplomacy.
Warfare is also an area in which serious work needs to be made. The period was nothing short of revolutionary in warfare (as the book Warfare and Society in Europe by Geoffrey Wawro makes clear) yet despite the large improvements that have been made, I still don't get the feeling from it. Warfare feels comparatively bland, with all nation's armies being pretty much the same except for the techs and inventions held by each. This needs a total revolution. There needs to be a mechanism that brings greater depth to warfare. Perhaps a shallow system of doctrine (I'm not calling for anything as advanced as Hearts of Iron's here, perhaps something akin to EU4's ideas) as well as taking into account the effectiveness boost provided by higher literacy rates in the soldiery. Mobilization needs an overhaul too, perhaps allowing the player to organize a system which would bring reserve troops to assigned armies, rather than just crudely sending them to rally points and what not. Rally points focused on armies rather than provinces with pre-set limit to the amount of reserve regiments taken perhaps?
Another military matter which needs to be taken into account is that of weaponry. Whereas the Great Powers tended to use natively produced equipment (Germany's Krupp artillery and Dreyse Needleguns, and France's Chassepot), the same was not true of much of the rest of the world. The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 were largely fought with German equipment on the Ottoman side and French equipment on the Balkan leagues). While the Ottomans did not have the capability of manufacturing their own sufficient arms in the First World War, they were able to make up for this technological and industrial shortfall by purchasing from Germany. I feel that military technology should be more linked to the industrial side of things rather than the combat side. Purchasing arms should not be done though some "world market", which is a flawed mechanism anyway, but should rather be done from the nation/company in question. Nations with a technologically advanced arms industry would make a greater profit through selling their goods to other nations, whereas those whose arms are considered sub-par may not have this additional source of income.
Speaking of blandness, I do feel that something needs to be done with the extra-European world. While this is the period when Europeans went from controlling a sizeable yet non-majority chunk of the world to controlling about 85% of it, this does not mean that non-Western nations are to be ignored. While the Westernization mechanism was greatly improved in Vicky II's lifespan, it still meant left a relatively bland experience that assumed most non-European nations were on an equally shitty footing (places such as Egypt and Japan excepted). Africa in particular was a rather poor display, with much of the continent simply depicted as being devoid of organized states outside of Ethiopia and Sokoto. Obviously other states that were around in the era (the Ashanti, Kingdoms around the great lakes and such).
There's so much more that I could comment on, but I feel like I've blathered enough already. I would like some of these ideas to be at least considered by the development team, as I do believe that a more accurate representation of history and its processes would actually be more fun to play, even if some of the mechanisms would be a pain in the ass to code.
I'd actually argue that the game could do with a lesser focus on economics. Or at least, a lesser focus on resource-based economics that dominates the game as it is. Firstly, I think the focus on this can lead to a lack of concentration in other economic areas (as people have mentioned, issues such as inflation, trade and currency) and leads to an inaccurate depiction of the resources produced by some nations. The fact that single provinces are limited to one resource leads to an odd situation where Iran in 1836 has to import most of its food supplies (whereas even after two centuries of enormous population growth, Iran imports approximately 15% of its wheat).
What would I do about this? Well, firstly I'd take food out of the resource equation. It can be safely assume that almost all provinces in the period were food producers alongside the production of consumer goods or industrial materials. While there were certainly nations that suffered a critical lack of this resource during the 19th century (such as China) I feel like this could be be handled better with a different mechanism. Unfortunately, I cannot think of one, so perhaps it is a bit poor of me to offer criticism without thinking of a potential solution.
One area that definitely needs improvement is diplomacy. More should be done to emphasise the somewhat ephemeral nature of alliances between the great powers after 1815 and before the 1890s. Until the German-Austrian and Franco-Russian alliances, alliances in Europe tended not to be too strong or long lasting. While Britain and France were allies during the Crimean War, they were for much of the century competitors. Italy's alliance with France was easily forgotten about after the task of liberating part of Northern Italy was completed (and it became apparent that France would not liberate the rest of it). Great Powers going into alliances without clear objectives such as contain Russia or defeat Austria weren't really a feature of the period 1815-1880. I feel like this needs to be far better represented in Vicky III, along with many other aspects of diplomacy.
Warfare is also an area in which serious work needs to be made. The period was nothing short of revolutionary in warfare (as the book Warfare and Society in Europe by Geoffrey Wawro makes clear) yet despite the large improvements that have been made, I still don't get the feeling from it. Warfare feels comparatively bland, with all nation's armies being pretty much the same except for the techs and inventions held by each. This needs a total revolution. There needs to be a mechanism that brings greater depth to warfare. Perhaps a shallow system of doctrine (I'm not calling for anything as advanced as Hearts of Iron's here, perhaps something akin to EU4's ideas) as well as taking into account the effectiveness boost provided by higher literacy rates in the soldiery. Mobilization needs an overhaul too, perhaps allowing the player to organize a system which would bring reserve troops to assigned armies, rather than just crudely sending them to rally points and what not. Rally points focused on armies rather than provinces with pre-set limit to the amount of reserve regiments taken perhaps?
Another military matter which needs to be taken into account is that of weaponry. Whereas the Great Powers tended to use natively produced equipment (Germany's Krupp artillery and Dreyse Needleguns, and France's Chassepot), the same was not true of much of the rest of the world. The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 were largely fought with German equipment on the Ottoman side and French equipment on the Balkan leagues). While the Ottomans did not have the capability of manufacturing their own sufficient arms in the First World War, they were able to make up for this technological and industrial shortfall by purchasing from Germany. I feel that military technology should be more linked to the industrial side of things rather than the combat side. Purchasing arms should not be done though some "world market", which is a flawed mechanism anyway, but should rather be done from the nation/company in question. Nations with a technologically advanced arms industry would make a greater profit through selling their goods to other nations, whereas those whose arms are considered sub-par may not have this additional source of income.
Speaking of blandness, I do feel that something needs to be done with the extra-European world. While this is the period when Europeans went from controlling a sizeable yet non-majority chunk of the world to controlling about 85% of it, this does not mean that non-Western nations are to be ignored. While the Westernization mechanism was greatly improved in Vicky II's lifespan, it still meant left a relatively bland experience that assumed most non-European nations were on an equally shitty footing (places such as Egypt and Japan excepted). Africa in particular was a rather poor display, with much of the continent simply depicted as being devoid of organized states outside of Ethiopia and Sokoto. Obviously other states that were around in the era (the Ashanti, Kingdoms around the great lakes and such).
There's so much more that I could comment on, but I feel like I've blathered enough already. I would like some of these ideas to be at least considered by the development team, as I do believe that a more accurate representation of history and its processes would actually be more fun to play, even if some of the mechanisms would be a pain in the ass to code.
Warning long post 
And I have a feeling I might be a minority of one in what I'd like to see, but I'd still like to get this out there.
Short summary: V2 is a great game, but there are things which can be improved on. I'd like to see Better diplomacy, better crisises and warfare and diplomacy being intertwined. Warfare itself could use more dept by using supply depots, instituting limited warfare and having warfare evolve from Napoleon individual battles to WW1. Nations could be made more unique by having unique reforms and policies per nation. I'd like holding far flung holdings to have more strategic value by tying them into buying power in regional markets, and serving as a supply base for military operations.
My primary concern for VIII is that we'll see a sort of Europa Universalis 4: Victoria Edition. I personally can't see anything good coming out of EU4 for Victoria. I love V2 and I feel like it would make a good base for a sequel. There are some bad things about the games I'd like to see fixed. Mostly related to war and diplomacy, I would like more dept to both. At its core neither the game nor the period is about war. It is about competition between nations, but by means of diplomacy, economy and colonies, not war. War should be a last resort, and actually be quite rare.
Following on what Nippon above me said about alliances, I would get of alliance entirely. Only keeping a special kind of alliance in game to represent the Dual Alliance and Triple Entente. (Perhaps a form of durable coalitions?) As Nippon mentioned before me, alliances such as those in represented in game don't fit this time period, and what is more, are hugely abusable by the player. I mean, allying with Britian to get them to conquer Johor for you anyone? I have mentioned before the need for a deeper diplomatic system, and I would like to build on it. I had proposed a system whereby nations would not join wars immediately, but instead wars would function as mini crisises, with all relevant powers (great and secondary) being able to declare an interest in the war. All nations involved in the crisis would have action points which they could spend on a various actions (such a try and draw a power into the war, keep others out, try and force a peaceful solution). I would include a similar system for general crisis. All together, this would beter represent the political realities of the 19th century, and make alliances as represented in game superfluous. What I would include would be guarantees. A guarantee would signal an interest in a nation, and in case of war of crisis the guarantor would automaticly be biased towards their guarantee (but not necessarily automatically side with them). One could even include specific guarantees (such as guarantee a specific region or colony, or against specific war goals) to make the signal function clearer.
Although I don't have any major suggestions to improve warfare, I do feel it could use a lot of work. Having more unit types, and more specialisation in unit types (e.g. terrain bonus) would be great. To better show the evolution of warfare over the period (from individual battles of the Napoleonic era to the frontlines of WW1), I would include a modifier to the time it takes for armies to engage. It would start as it is now (with armies only engaging in battle if they are in the same province), and end like HOI (where engagements are instantaneously). So engagements would only start if you moved 100% into another province (i.e. you are physically in the province) in the begining, but this would slowly decrease with tech (say to 75% where you engage once you've moved 75% into that direction, to 50% to 25% to eventually 0% where you engage the moment you move towards another province).
Some semblance of supply lines would also be really beneficial to the game. Being able to march a 20.000 men strong army across the sahara in 1840 is rather silly. My proposal would be a supply depot system, each of which has an X province range and can support Y troops. Going beyond this will increase attrition and reduce combat effectiveness. This will stop ahistoric (unrealistic) expansion, as well as give some minor (unciv) states a better chance of survival, as well as give a reason to hold on to far flung outposts of your empire.
Also, I would like to see a concept of limited warfare in game. As it is now, with opposing side immediately pouring all their resources into another nation or attacking completely unrelated targets, doesn't feel right. Being able to appoint 'contested area's' (regions where warfare is allowed) would be something, but not great imo. Instead I would borrow the 'hostility' concept from CK II. You can siege enemy provinces or blockade ports (and destroy low level colonial holdings), and armies would engage if they met eachother, but would not trigger full scale invasions from either side. Of course peace options would be limited (think 'end colonisation in [...]' 'cessation of hostilities,' 'repay debt,' 'grant consession'). It would go a long way to represent low intensity conflicts, colonial warfare, punitative expeditions and gunboat diplomacy. This is btw I feel is especially missing in EU4. If you want to, say burn a French trading post in India, you'll immediately find 5 doomstacks moving towards your capital. That is not really representative of history...
Another major issue I have with V2 is a general blandness. With their being little difference between various nations in play style. While I don't want to see the national ideas imported from EU4, I do feel they do a good job of making each nation unique. Events and decisions go a long way to making nations unique, they are but a band aid IMO. What I'd like to see is the ability to set unique policies and reforms per nation. This would make every nation unique in play style, or at least give it some flavour. And it would certainly help with uncivs if they could have their own unique paths to follow. It would also be great if you could enact specific policies for your colonies. There is no need for them to follow the same policies as the motherland.
Speaking of uncivs (I actually don't know if it is the case in V2) but if a unciv is isolationist, let it actually be isolationist. No interaction with foreign countries (except possibly neighbours), no sphereing them and no declaring war by them or on them. You should have to make some effort to get them to open up. I would also tie the other reforms to actual gameplay mechanics, although I don't really have specifics in mind. Perhaps land reform + interactive diplomacy allows you to (ask foreign investors to) build plantations, or operate mining concessions.
Speaking of concessions I would like to see the map divided in regional trade zones, and have your ability to trade in a zone dependant on having trading posts there (so territories as Macau, Port Arthur and Tranquebar actually serve a purpose in game).
I would disagree with the removal of food as resource from the game. There were and still are plenty of regions in the world which cannot feed themselves (to various extends), and food supply should be a major strategic issue (think Germany in WW1 and WW2). I would give each province 2 RGOs, with most provinces having 1 food producing RGO and 1 other type. And some regions having 2 food producing RGOs, while others have none. That would be a much better way to go about it than to remove food as a trade good.
There was some discussion about the art style in recent Paradox games. While I don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other, I wouldn't be too happy if V3 went the same way as EU4. I would like to see a romanticist and realist artistic style in V3, not the computer drawn style of EU4. Not that I think it is ugly, but it doesn't fit the feel of the period imo. On the map I'm also torn. The V2 map isn't great, and recent screenshot of HOI4 do show a map beautiful terrian map (less enthusiastic about the political map though). I'm concerned the engine will not be able to render fine detail well, which I feel is important to make the map come alive. Ideally I would like to have (the visual appearence of) an actual map to play on, not a 3D generated map.
I'm a bit worried the decisions menu will go the way of CK II and EU4. I like how in V2 you get a nice picture of the event and a description. It adds a bit of flavour to the game. In CK II and EU4 you (I) don't even look at the decision, its title or the description. I only hover over the effect button to see if it is something I want. That is bland, boring and meaningless to me (nor helped by the fact that most decisions are shared). It doesn't help you create a story for your nation.
Now I do realise that the decision menu from V2 functions very poorly, especially with mods such as PDM, and here is what I propose to make it better:
Divide the decisions over a couple of tabs (say 'major (or unique)' decisions, 'minor (or shared)' decisions and 'technical' decisions [for things like 'toggle RGO spread events' from PDM]), and make them collapsible so they don't take up that much space (and set the major decisions to open by default).
A few minor points:
-As mentioned earlier. Being able to rename armies, navies and units. I cannot begin to fathom why that was removed from the game.
-Being able to sleep and activate political parties by event. I'm even more flabbergasted this was removed from the game. Political parties didn't just start on one date and end on another. They changed based on changing circumstances, such as passing a new constitution or the loss of a major war. In a game which rejects railroading, this was awfully railroaded...
-Being able to assign portraits to leaders. I know it is minor, but I was looking through the V1 mod forum and saw this amazing thread where somebody made leader portraits for hundreds of historical generals and admirals. I would so love to see this in V3.
-While the golden age of piracy was over, and a number of notorious pirate nests elimated shortly after the Napoleonic war, piracy still played a major role in the period, and some representation of it in game would be great. Would fit nicely with my concept of hostility.
-No core spread. This is a period of nationalism. You should only have cores on those provinces which are of your culture. For everything else you get claims, not cores (though spreading culture should of course result in spreading of your cores)
-I'd like to see heads of state and heads of government. A cabinet would be nice, but its not something I would miss if it wasn't there. I would miss heads of states and heads of governments though. They did play a major role in this period, and would add more to the political side of things. Give them a nice painting as well, not like EU4 where it is just an empty name.
-Make religion mean something. Sure the religious wars of the EU4 period are over, but religion still played a major role in [international] politics.
Okay, this post is a lot longer than planned. Colonies and colonisation could also use work (adding actual protectorates would be a start), but I wont go into that now.
I might seem to be picking on EU4, but I don't think it is a bad game (and am actually looking forward to AoW). I had a couple of fun campaigns. I quite liked playing in the HRE, but that got really boring really quickly once I revoked the privilegia (500,000 men strong vassal armies FTW yo!). It is just not my type of game. Using the (imo) failings of EU4 provides a nice counterpoint to what I'd like V3 to be.
And I have a feeling I might be a minority of one in what I'd like to see, but I'd still like to get this out there.Short summary: V2 is a great game, but there are things which can be improved on. I'd like to see Better diplomacy, better crisises and warfare and diplomacy being intertwined. Warfare itself could use more dept by using supply depots, instituting limited warfare and having warfare evolve from Napoleon individual battles to WW1. Nations could be made more unique by having unique reforms and policies per nation. I'd like holding far flung holdings to have more strategic value by tying them into buying power in regional markets, and serving as a supply base for military operations.
My primary concern for VIII is that we'll see a sort of Europa Universalis 4: Victoria Edition. I personally can't see anything good coming out of EU4 for Victoria. I love V2 and I feel like it would make a good base for a sequel. There are some bad things about the games I'd like to see fixed. Mostly related to war and diplomacy, I would like more dept to both. At its core neither the game nor the period is about war. It is about competition between nations, but by means of diplomacy, economy and colonies, not war. War should be a last resort, and actually be quite rare.
Following on what Nippon above me said about alliances, I would get of alliance entirely. Only keeping a special kind of alliance in game to represent the Dual Alliance and Triple Entente. (Perhaps a form of durable coalitions?) As Nippon mentioned before me, alliances such as those in represented in game don't fit this time period, and what is more, are hugely abusable by the player. I mean, allying with Britian to get them to conquer Johor for you anyone? I have mentioned before the need for a deeper diplomatic system, and I would like to build on it. I had proposed a system whereby nations would not join wars immediately, but instead wars would function as mini crisises, with all relevant powers (great and secondary) being able to declare an interest in the war. All nations involved in the crisis would have action points which they could spend on a various actions (such a try and draw a power into the war, keep others out, try and force a peaceful solution). I would include a similar system for general crisis. All together, this would beter represent the political realities of the 19th century, and make alliances as represented in game superfluous. What I would include would be guarantees. A guarantee would signal an interest in a nation, and in case of war of crisis the guarantor would automaticly be biased towards their guarantee (but not necessarily automatically side with them). One could even include specific guarantees (such as guarantee a specific region or colony, or against specific war goals) to make the signal function clearer.
Although I don't have any major suggestions to improve warfare, I do feel it could use a lot of work. Having more unit types, and more specialisation in unit types (e.g. terrain bonus) would be great. To better show the evolution of warfare over the period (from individual battles of the Napoleonic era to the frontlines of WW1), I would include a modifier to the time it takes for armies to engage. It would start as it is now (with armies only engaging in battle if they are in the same province), and end like HOI (where engagements are instantaneously). So engagements would only start if you moved 100% into another province (i.e. you are physically in the province) in the begining, but this would slowly decrease with tech (say to 75% where you engage once you've moved 75% into that direction, to 50% to 25% to eventually 0% where you engage the moment you move towards another province).
Some semblance of supply lines would also be really beneficial to the game. Being able to march a 20.000 men strong army across the sahara in 1840 is rather silly. My proposal would be a supply depot system, each of which has an X province range and can support Y troops. Going beyond this will increase attrition and reduce combat effectiveness. This will stop ahistoric (unrealistic) expansion, as well as give some minor (unciv) states a better chance of survival, as well as give a reason to hold on to far flung outposts of your empire.
Also, I would like to see a concept of limited warfare in game. As it is now, with opposing side immediately pouring all their resources into another nation or attacking completely unrelated targets, doesn't feel right. Being able to appoint 'contested area's' (regions where warfare is allowed) would be something, but not great imo. Instead I would borrow the 'hostility' concept from CK II. You can siege enemy provinces or blockade ports (and destroy low level colonial holdings), and armies would engage if they met eachother, but would not trigger full scale invasions from either side. Of course peace options would be limited (think 'end colonisation in [...]' 'cessation of hostilities,' 'repay debt,' 'grant consession'). It would go a long way to represent low intensity conflicts, colonial warfare, punitative expeditions and gunboat diplomacy. This is btw I feel is especially missing in EU4. If you want to, say burn a French trading post in India, you'll immediately find 5 doomstacks moving towards your capital. That is not really representative of history...
Another major issue I have with V2 is a general blandness. With their being little difference between various nations in play style. While I don't want to see the national ideas imported from EU4, I do feel they do a good job of making each nation unique. Events and decisions go a long way to making nations unique, they are but a band aid IMO. What I'd like to see is the ability to set unique policies and reforms per nation. This would make every nation unique in play style, or at least give it some flavour. And it would certainly help with uncivs if they could have their own unique paths to follow. It would also be great if you could enact specific policies for your colonies. There is no need for them to follow the same policies as the motherland.
Speaking of uncivs (I actually don't know if it is the case in V2) but if a unciv is isolationist, let it actually be isolationist. No interaction with foreign countries (except possibly neighbours), no sphereing them and no declaring war by them or on them. You should have to make some effort to get them to open up. I would also tie the other reforms to actual gameplay mechanics, although I don't really have specifics in mind. Perhaps land reform + interactive diplomacy allows you to (ask foreign investors to) build plantations, or operate mining concessions.
Speaking of concessions I would like to see the map divided in regional trade zones, and have your ability to trade in a zone dependant on having trading posts there (so territories as Macau, Port Arthur and Tranquebar actually serve a purpose in game).
I would disagree with the removal of food as resource from the game. There were and still are plenty of regions in the world which cannot feed themselves (to various extends), and food supply should be a major strategic issue (think Germany in WW1 and WW2). I would give each province 2 RGOs, with most provinces having 1 food producing RGO and 1 other type. And some regions having 2 food producing RGOs, while others have none. That would be a much better way to go about it than to remove food as a trade good.
There was some discussion about the art style in recent Paradox games. While I don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other, I wouldn't be too happy if V3 went the same way as EU4. I would like to see a romanticist and realist artistic style in V3, not the computer drawn style of EU4. Not that I think it is ugly, but it doesn't fit the feel of the period imo. On the map I'm also torn. The V2 map isn't great, and recent screenshot of HOI4 do show a map beautiful terrian map (less enthusiastic about the political map though). I'm concerned the engine will not be able to render fine detail well, which I feel is important to make the map come alive. Ideally I would like to have (the visual appearence of) an actual map to play on, not a 3D generated map.
I'm a bit worried the decisions menu will go the way of CK II and EU4. I like how in V2 you get a nice picture of the event and a description. It adds a bit of flavour to the game. In CK II and EU4 you (I) don't even look at the decision, its title or the description. I only hover over the effect button to see if it is something I want. That is bland, boring and meaningless to me (nor helped by the fact that most decisions are shared). It doesn't help you create a story for your nation.
Now I do realise that the decision menu from V2 functions very poorly, especially with mods such as PDM, and here is what I propose to make it better:
Divide the decisions over a couple of tabs (say 'major (or unique)' decisions, 'minor (or shared)' decisions and 'technical' decisions [for things like 'toggle RGO spread events' from PDM]), and make them collapsible so they don't take up that much space (and set the major decisions to open by default).
A few minor points:
-As mentioned earlier. Being able to rename armies, navies and units. I cannot begin to fathom why that was removed from the game.
-Being able to sleep and activate political parties by event. I'm even more flabbergasted this was removed from the game. Political parties didn't just start on one date and end on another. They changed based on changing circumstances, such as passing a new constitution or the loss of a major war. In a game which rejects railroading, this was awfully railroaded...
-Being able to assign portraits to leaders. I know it is minor, but I was looking through the V1 mod forum and saw this amazing thread where somebody made leader portraits for hundreds of historical generals and admirals. I would so love to see this in V3.
-While the golden age of piracy was over, and a number of notorious pirate nests elimated shortly after the Napoleonic war, piracy still played a major role in the period, and some representation of it in game would be great. Would fit nicely with my concept of hostility.
-No core spread. This is a period of nationalism. You should only have cores on those provinces which are of your culture. For everything else you get claims, not cores (though spreading culture should of course result in spreading of your cores)
-I'd like to see heads of state and heads of government. A cabinet would be nice, but its not something I would miss if it wasn't there. I would miss heads of states and heads of governments though. They did play a major role in this period, and would add more to the political side of things. Give them a nice painting as well, not like EU4 where it is just an empty name.
-Make religion mean something. Sure the religious wars of the EU4 period are over, but religion still played a major role in [international] politics.
Okay, this post is a lot longer than planned. Colonies and colonisation could also use work (adding actual protectorates would be a start), but I wont go into that now.
I might seem to be picking on EU4, but I don't think it is a bad game (and am actually looking forward to AoW). I had a couple of fun campaigns. I quite liked playing in the HRE, but that got really boring really quickly once I revoked the privilegia (500,000 men strong vassal armies FTW yo!). It is just not my type of game. Using the (imo) failings of EU4 provides a nice counterpoint to what I'd like V3 to be.
If I could choose one post for Paradox to read in this thread, it would be this one.Warning long post
Warning long post
Short summary: V2 is a great game, but there are things which can be improved on. I'd like to see Better diplomacy, better crisises and warfare and diplomacy being intertwined. Warfare itself could use more dept by using supply depots, instituting limited warfare and having warfare evolve from Napoleon individual battles to WW1. Nations could be made more unique by having unique reforms and policies per nation. I'd like holding far flung holdings to have more strategic value by tying them into buying power in regional markets, and serving as a supply base for military operations.
My primary concern for VIII is that we'll see a sort of Europa Universalis 4: Victoria Edition. I personally can't see anything good coming out of EU4 for Victoria. I love V2 and I feel like it would make a good base for a sequel. There are some bad things about the games I'd like to see fixed. Mostly related to war and diplomacy, I would like more dept to both. At its core neither the game nor the period is about war. It is about competition between nations, but by means of diplomacy, economy and colonies, not war. War should be a last resort, and actually be quite rare.
Following on what Nippon above me said about alliances, I would get of alliance entirely. Only keeping a special kind of alliance in game to represent the Dual Alliance and Triple Entente. (Perhaps a form of durable coalitions?) As Nippon mentioned before me, alliances such as those in represented in game don't fit this time period, and what is more, are hugely abusable by the player. I mean, allying with Britian to get them to conquer Johor for you anyone? I have mentioned before the need for a deeper diplomatic system, and I would like to build on it. I had proposed a system whereby nations would not join wars immediately, but instead wars would function as mini crisises, with all relevant powers (great and secondary) being able to declare an interest in the war. All nations involved in the crisis would have action points which they could spend on a various actions (such a try and draw a power into the war, keep others out, try and force a peaceful solution). I would include a similar system for general crisis. All together, this would beter represent the political realities of the 19th century, and make alliances as represented in game superfluous. What I would include would be guarantees. A guarantee would signal an interest in a nation, and in case of war of crisis the guarantor would automaticly be biased towards their guarantee (but not necessarily automatically side with them). One could even include specific guarantees (such as guarantee a specific region or colony, or against specific war goals) to make the signal function clearer.
Although I don't have any major suggestions to improve warfare, I do feel it could use a lot of work. Having more unit types, and more specialisation in unit types (e.g. terrain bonus) would be great. To better show the evolution of warfare over the period (from individual battles of the Napoleonic era to the frontlines of WW1), I would include a modifier to the time it takes for armies to engage. It would start as it is now (with armies only engaging in battle if they are in the same province), and end like HOI (where engagements are instantaneously). So engagements would only start if you moved 100% into another province (i.e. you are physically in the province) in the begining, but this would slowly decrease with tech (say to 75% where you engage once you've moved 75% into that direction, to 50% to 25% to eventually 0% where you engage the moment you move towards another province).
Some semblance of supply lines would also be really beneficial to the game. Being able to march a 20.000 men strong army across the sahara in 1840 is rather silly. My proposal would be a supply depot system, each of which has an X province range and can support Y troops. Going beyond this will increase attrition and reduce combat effectiveness. This will stop ahistoric (unrealistic) expansion, as well as give some minor (unciv) states a better chance of survival, as well as give a reason to hold on to far flung outposts of your empire.
Also, I would like to see a concept of limited warfare in game. As it is now, with opposing side immediately pouring all their resources into another nation or attacking completely unrelated targets, doesn't feel right. Being able to appoint 'contested area's' (regions where warfare is allowed) would be something, but not great imo. Instead I would borrow the 'hostility' concept from CK II. You can siege enemy provinces or blockade ports (and destroy low level colonial holdings), and armies would engage if they met eachother, but would not trigger full scale invasions from either side. Of course peace options would be limited (think 'end colonisation in [...]' 'cessation of hostilities,' 'repay debt,' 'grant consession'). It would go a long way to represent low intensity conflicts, colonial warfare, punitative expeditions and gunboat diplomacy. This is btw I feel is especially missing in EU4. If you want to, say burn a French trading post in India, you'll immediately find 5 doomstacks moving towards your capital. That is not really representative of history...
Another major issue I have with V2 is a general blandness. With their being little difference between various nations in play style. While I don't want to see the national ideas imported from EU4, I do feel they do a good job of making each nation unique. Events and decisions go a long way to making nations unique, they are but a band aid IMO. What I'd like to see is the ability to set unique policies and reforms per nation. This would make every nation unique in play style, or at least give it some flavour. And it would certainly help with uncivs if they could have their own unique paths to follow. It would also be great if you could enact specific policies for your colonies. There is no need for them to follow the same policies as the motherland.
Speaking of uncivs (I actually don't know if it is the case in V2) but if a unciv is isolationist, let it actually be isolationist. No interaction with foreign countries (except possibly neighbours), no sphereing them and no declaring war by them or on them. You should have to make some effort to get them to open up. I would also tie the other reforms to actual gameplay mechanics, although I don't really have specifics in mind. Perhaps land reform + interactive diplomacy allows you to (ask foreign investors to) build plantations, or operate mining concessions.
Speaking of concessions I would like to see the map divided in regional trade zones, and have your ability to trade in a zone dependant on having trading posts there (so territories as Macau, Port Arthur and Tranquebar actually serve a purpose in game).
I would disagree with the removal of food as resource from the game. There were and still are plenty of regions in the world which cannot feed themselves (to various extends), and food supply should be a major strategic issue (think Germany in WW1 and WW2). I would give each province 2 RGOs, with most provinces having 1 food producing RGO and 1 other type. And some regions having 2 food producing RGOs, while others have none. That would be a much better way to go about it than to remove food as a trade good.
There was some discussion about the art style in recent Paradox games. While I don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other, I wouldn't be too happy if V3 went the same way as EU4. I would like to see a romanticist and realist artistic style in V3, not the computer drawn style of EU4. Not that I think it is ugly, but it doesn't fit the feel of the period imo. On the map I'm also torn. The V2 map isn't great, and recent screenshot of HOI4 do show a map beautiful terrian map (less enthusiastic about the political map though). I'm concerned the engine will not be able to render fine detail well, which I feel is important to make the map come alive. Ideally I would like to have (the visual appearence of) an actual map to play on, not a 3D generated map.
I'm a bit worried the decisions menu will go the way of CK II and EU4. I like how in V2 you get a nice picture of the event and a description. It adds a bit of flavour to the game. In CK II and EU4 you (I) don't even look at the decision, its title or the description. I only hover over the effect button to see if it is something I want. That is bland, boring and meaningless to me (nor helped by the fact that most decisions are shared). It doesn't help you create a story for your nation.
Now I do realise that the decision menu from V2 functions very poorly, especially with mods such as PDM, and here is what I propose to make it better:
Divide the decisions over a couple of tabs (say 'major (or unique)' decisions, 'minor (or shared)' decisions and 'technical' decisions [for things like 'toggle RGO spread events' from PDM]), and make them collapsible so they don't take up that much space (and set the major decisions to open by default).
A few minor points:
-As mentioned earlier. Being able to rename armies, navies and units. I cannot begin to fathom why that was removed from the game.
-Being able to sleep and activate political parties by event. I'm even more flabbergasted this was removed from the game. Political parties didn't just start on one date and end on another. They changed based on changing circumstances, such as passing a new constitution or the loss of a major war. In a game which rejects railroading, this was awfully railroaded...
-Being able to assign portraits to leaders. I know it is minor, but I was looking through the V1 mod forum and saw this amazing thread where somebody made leader portraits for hundreds of historical generals and admirals. I would so love to see this in V3.
-While the golden age of piracy was over, and a number of notorious pirate nests elimated shortly after the Napoleonic war, piracy still played a major role in the period, and some representation of it in game would be great. Would fit nicely with my concept of hostility.
-No core spread. This is a period of nationalism. You should only have cores on those provinces which are of your culture. For everything else you get claims, not cores (though spreading culture should of course result in spreading of your cores)
-I'd like to see heads of state and heads of government. A cabinet would be nice, but its not something I would miss if it wasn't there. I would miss heads of states and heads of governments though. They did play a major role in this period, and would add more to the political side of things. Give them a nice painting as well, not like EU4 where it is just an empty name.
-Make religion mean something. Sure the religious wars of the EU4 period are over, but religion still played a major role in [international] politics.
Okay, this post is a lot longer than planned. Colonies and colonisation could also use work (adding actual protectorates would be a start), but I wont go into that now.
I might seem to be picking on EU4, but I don't think it is a bad game (and am actually looking forward to AoW). I had a couple of fun campaigns. I quite liked playing in the HRE, but that got really boring really quickly once I revoked the privilegia (500,000 men strong vassal armies FTW yo!). It is just not my type of game. Using the (imo) failings of EU4 provides a nice counterpoint to what I'd like V3 to be.
It was long but it was good. I want those ideas in Victoria III.
Bring the monarch names forward from EUIV. No need for monarch points, but something which ties the monarch personality type to events and unrest might be worthwhile. Prussia/Germany is a country which was heavily influenced by its monarchs in particular (Wilhelm II), so some sort of small but present role would make the game just that small bit more enjoyable (and then we can also carry our dynasty names forward from CK2 through to Victoria 3, which would be awesome).
^ It would seem having heads of states is one of the most requested features for V3.
@Barkingdragon13 and Demarque
Thanks for the support, lets hope paradox listens!
@Barkingdragon13 and Demarque
Thanks for the support, lets hope paradox listens!
I know that others have said some of this but, I mostly want
An improved military system, especially for late game. I have not played any of the HOI's but I really want a military system with more command structure (the ability to make my own divisions, and put them into armies rather than just a bunch of battalions running around, and no real lines of battle. Better implementation of a trench system would be good too. The "dig in" bonus is a nice feature, but it really doesn't do anything to save you from a doomstack.
An improved military system, especially for late game. I have not played any of the HOI's but I really want a military system with more command structure (the ability to make my own divisions, and put them into armies rather than just a bunch of battalions running around, and no real lines of battle. Better implementation of a trench system would be good too. The "dig in" bonus is a nice feature, but it really doesn't do anything to save you from a doomstack.
My ideas for Vicky 3
More new provinces in Europe and outside Europe
More mechanic for each goverment types like Monarchy can have royal marriage.
More new formable nations like Indochina, Byzantine Empire, Danubia etc.
More alternate historical elements
Possible that Religion might become more important than Victoria 2
Improved nationalities and ethnics systems
More sprites for Non Great Power like Mexico, Persia, Siam, Greece, etc. and improved sprites like if Japan become civilized so Japanese sprite will change from Samurai to Modernized Meiji Infantry so same as other uncivilized nations.
More new provinces in Europe and outside Europe
More mechanic for each goverment types like Monarchy can have royal marriage.
More new formable nations like Indochina, Byzantine Empire, Danubia etc.
More alternate historical elements
Possible that Religion might become more important than Victoria 2
Improved nationalities and ethnics systems
More sprites for Non Great Power like Mexico, Persia, Siam, Greece, etc. and improved sprites like if Japan become civilized so Japanese sprite will change from Samurai to Modernized Meiji Infantry so same as other uncivilized nations.
Since the game uses actual population instead of some magic base tax, more provinces is not really needed. It would only be to move armies in and it would be a lot more work. Unless they add a move=attack system, that would not be necessary.
Warning long post
Short summary: V2 is a great game, but there are things which can be improved on. I'd like to see Better diplomacy, better crisises and warfare and diplomacy being intertwined. Warfare itself could use more dept by using supply depots, instituting limited warfare and having warfare evolve from Napoleon individual battles to WW1. Nations could be made more unique by having unique reforms and policies per nation. I'd like holding far flung holdings to have more strategic value by tying them into buying power in regional markets, and serving as a supply base for military operations.
My primary concern for VIII is that we'll see a sort of Europa Universalis 4: Victoria Edition. I personally can't see anything good coming out of EU4 for Victoria. I love V2 and I feel like it would make a good base for a sequel. There are some bad things about the games I'd like to see fixed. Mostly related to war and diplomacy, I would like more dept to both. At its core neither the game nor the period is about war. It is about competition between nations, but by means of diplomacy, economy and colonies, not war. War should be a last resort, and actually be quite rare.
Following on what Nippon above me said about alliances, I would get of alliance entirely. Only keeping a special kind of alliance in game to represent the Dual Alliance and Triple Entente. (Perhaps a form of durable coalitions?) As Nippon mentioned before me, alliances such as those in represented in game don't fit this time period, and what is more, are hugely abusable by the player. I mean, allying with Britian to get them to conquer Johor for you anyone? I have mentioned before the need for a deeper diplomatic system, and I would like to build on it. I had proposed a system whereby nations would not join wars immediately, but instead wars would function as mini crisises, with all relevant powers (great and secondary) being able to declare an interest in the war. All nations involved in the crisis would have action points which they could spend on a various actions (such a try and draw a power into the war, keep others out, try and force a peaceful solution). I would include a similar system for general crisis. All together, this would beter represent the political realities of the 19th century, and make alliances as represented in game superfluous. What I would include would be guarantees. A guarantee would signal an interest in a nation, and in case of war of crisis the guarantor would automaticly be biased towards their guarantee (but not necessarily automatically side with them). One could even include specific guarantees (such as guarantee a specific region or colony, or against specific war goals) to make the signal function clearer.
Although I don't have any major suggestions to improve warfare, I do feel it could use a lot of work. Having more unit types, and more specialisation in unit types (e.g. terrain bonus) would be great. To better show the evolution of warfare over the period (from individual battles of the Napoleonic era to the frontlines of WW1), I would include a modifier to the time it takes for armies to engage. It would start as it is now (with armies only engaging in battle if they are in the same province), and end like HOI (where engagements are instantaneously). So engagements would only start if you moved 100% into another province (i.e. you are physically in the province) in the begining, but this would slowly decrease with tech (say to 75% where you engage once you've moved 75% into that direction, to 50% to 25% to eventually 0% where you engage the moment you move towards another province).
Some semblance of supply lines would also be really beneficial to the game. Being able to march a 20.000 men strong army across the sahara in 1840 is rather silly. My proposal would be a supply depot system, each of which has an X province range and can support Y troops. Going beyond this will increase attrition and reduce combat effectiveness. This will stop ahistoric (unrealistic) expansion, as well as give some minor (unciv) states a better chance of survival, as well as give a reason to hold on to far flung outposts of your empire.
Also, I would like to see a concept of limited warfare in game. As it is now, with opposing side immediately pouring all their resources into another nation or attacking completely unrelated targets, doesn't feel right. Being able to appoint 'contested area's' (regions where warfare is allowed) would be something, but not great imo. Instead I would borrow the 'hostility' concept from CK II. You can siege enemy provinces or blockade ports (and destroy low level colonial holdings), and armies would engage if they met eachother, but would not trigger full scale invasions from either side. Of course peace options would be limited (think 'end colonisation in [...]' 'cessation of hostilities,' 'repay debt,' 'grant consession'). It would go a long way to represent low intensity conflicts, colonial warfare, punitative expeditions and gunboat diplomacy. This is btw I feel is especially missing in EU4. If you want to, say burn a French trading post in India, you'll immediately find 5 doomstacks moving towards your capital. That is not really representative of history...
Another major issue I have with V2 is a general blandness. With their being little difference between various nations in play style. While I don't want to see the national ideas imported from EU4, I do feel they do a good job of making each nation unique. Events and decisions go a long way to making nations unique, they are but a band aid IMO. What I'd like to see is the ability to set unique policies and reforms per nation. This would make every nation unique in play style, or at least give it some flavour. And it would certainly help with uncivs if they could have their own unique paths to follow. It would also be great if you could enact specific policies for your colonies. There is no need for them to follow the same policies as the motherland.
Speaking of uncivs (I actually don't know if it is the case in V2) but if a unciv is isolationist, let it actually be isolationist. No interaction with foreign countries (except possibly neighbours), no sphereing them and no declaring war by them or on them. You should have to make some effort to get them to open up. I would also tie the other reforms to actual gameplay mechanics, although I don't really have specifics in mind. Perhaps land reform + interactive diplomacy allows you to (ask foreign investors to) build plantations, or operate mining concessions.
Speaking of concessions I would like to see the map divided in regional trade zones, and have your ability to trade in a zone dependant on having trading posts there (so territories as Macau, Port Arthur and Tranquebar actually serve a purpose in game).
I would disagree with the removal of food as resource from the game. There were and still are plenty of regions in the world which cannot feed themselves (to various extends), and food supply should be a major strategic issue (think Germany in WW1 and WW2). I would give each province 2 RGOs, with most provinces having 1 food producing RGO and 1 other type. And some regions having 2 food producing RGOs, while others have none. That would be a much better way to go about it than to remove food as a trade good.
There was some discussion about the art style in recent Paradox games. While I don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other, I wouldn't be too happy if V3 went the same way as EU4. I would like to see a romanticist and realist artistic style in V3, not the computer drawn style of EU4. Not that I think it is ugly, but it doesn't fit the feel of the period imo. On the map I'm also torn. The V2 map isn't great, and recent screenshot of HOI4 do show a map beautiful terrian map (less enthusiastic about the political map though). I'm concerned the engine will not be able to render fine detail well, which I feel is important to make the map come alive. Ideally I would like to have (the visual appearence of) an actual map to play on, not a 3D generated map.
I'm a bit worried the decisions menu will go the way of CK II and EU4. I like how in V2 you get a nice picture of the event and a description. It adds a bit of flavour to the game. In CK II and EU4 you (I) don't even look at the decision, its title or the description. I only hover over the effect button to see if it is something I want. That is bland, boring and meaningless to me (nor helped by the fact that most decisions are shared). It doesn't help you create a story for your nation.
Now I do realise that the decision menu from V2 functions very poorly, especially with mods such as PDM, and here is what I propose to make it better:
Divide the decisions over a couple of tabs (say 'major (or unique)' decisions, 'minor (or shared)' decisions and 'technical' decisions [for things like 'toggle RGO spread events' from PDM]), and make them collapsible so they don't take up that much space (and set the major decisions to open by default).
A few minor points:
-As mentioned earlier. Being able to rename armies, navies and units. I cannot begin to fathom why that was removed from the game.
-Being able to sleep and activate political parties by event. I'm even more flabbergasted this was removed from the game. Political parties didn't just start on one date and end on another. They changed based on changing circumstances, such as passing a new constitution or the loss of a major war. In a game which rejects railroading, this was awfully railroaded...
-Being able to assign portraits to leaders. I know it is minor, but I was looking through the V1 mod forum and saw this amazing thread where somebody made leader portraits for hundreds of historical generals and admirals. I would so love to see this in V3.
-While the golden age of piracy was over, and a number of notorious pirate nests elimated shortly after the Napoleonic war, piracy still played a major role in the period, and some representation of it in game would be great. Would fit nicely with my concept of hostility.
-No core spread. This is a period of nationalism. You should only have cores on those provinces which are of your culture. For everything else you get claims, not cores (though spreading culture should of course result in spreading of your cores)
-I'd like to see heads of state and heads of government. A cabinet would be nice, but its not something I would miss if it wasn't there. I would miss heads of states and heads of governments though. They did play a major role in this period, and would add more to the political side of things. Give them a nice painting as well, not like EU4 where it is just an empty name.
-Make religion mean something. Sure the religious wars of the EU4 period are over, but religion still played a major role in [international] politics.
Okay, this post is a lot longer than planned. Colonies and colonisation could also use work (adding actual protectorates would be a start), but I wont go into that now.
I might seem to be picking on EU4, but I don't think it is a bad game (and am actually looking forward to AoW). I had a couple of fun campaigns. I quite liked playing in the HRE, but that got really boring really quickly once I revoked the privilegia (500,000 men strong vassal armies FTW yo!). It is just not my type of game. Using the (imo) failings of EU4 provides a nice counterpoint to what I'd like V3 to be.
Although I like your ideas I don't think paradox will implement them,would love it if they did though
^ Yes my suggestions are a bit of a departure from the traditional Paradox game. But that is why I spread the gospel and get on my soapbox whenever I can.
crownsteler's points are doubleplusgood!
Also, I love the photographs in Vicky 2: Keep them!, but give them captions!
Also, I love the photographs in Vicky 2: Keep them!, but give them captions!