Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Features you'd like to see in Vicky 2 Megathread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Victoria 2 17560 After Action Reports (AAR)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Palisadoes said:
Yeah, definitely. Some sort of modifier reducing production efficiency whilst the distrubance of propping up some new factories takes place.
Click to expand...

Maybe have some sort of provincial division or breakdown of state industry - maybe at least just visual eye candy more so than anything actually significant? Infrastructure then, should definately have a direct impact upon the workings of industry. As I take industry to be more than "several factories", and proper industry needs proper infrastructure and networks.

Eg. a state has 5 provinces, and a furniture industry, for the movement of people and goods from those provinces to the factories etc. etc.

That said, I'd like rail, road and ports to be all seperate developments. Roads, a minor development until later in the game when extensive road networks are necessary, should not replace actual railroads, but rather in late development reduce their efficiency (while roads, themselves, offset and improve upon this). Ports, self explanatory.

What about canals too? Very important in that era: Eg, Grand and Royal Canals in Ireland, until the 1860s and '70s, were more and later as important as rail transport, only being surpassed in the very late 19th Century.
 
Hopefully it will be covered, but again, Victoria has a dedicated modding community.

If anything is forgotten by the developers, I can guarantee you it won't be forgotten by her community.

:)
 
I agree, the Berlin Conference was an event of enormous international importance at the time. There should be some kind of feature to model this.
 
Hardstuff said:
Maybe have some sort of provincial division or breakdown of state industry - maybe at least just visual eye candy more so than anything actually significant? Infrastructure then, should definately have a direct impact upon the workings of industry. As I take industry to be more than "several factories", and proper industry needs proper infrastructure and networks.

Eg. a state has 5 provinces, and a furniture industry, for the movement of people and goods from those provinces to the factories etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Yep. These are also reasons behind why I think "industry" is a better term for that activity across a state.
That said, I'd like rail, road and ports to be all seperate developments. Roads, a minor development until later in the game when extensive road networks are necessary, should not replace actual railroads, but rather in late development reduce their efficiency (while roads, themselves, offset and improve upon this). Ports, self explanatory.

What about canals too? Very important in that era: Eg, Grand and Royal Canals in Ireland, until the 1860s and '70s, were more and later as important as rail transport, only being surpassed in the very late 19th Century.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the infrastructure should be seperated too. Canals is a very good point you raise too. Birmingham (and the black country, in general) relied upon canal transportation to a large extent for it's industries. Indeed Birmingham claims to have more canals than Venice, due to their importance during the industrial revolution in that city.
 
JoeGiavani said:
Clearly it was pissed away because until about 20 years ago virtually all of Latin America was a sinkhole. It's changed in recent years, and it'll change more in the future, but compare the state of British India in 1930 to Latin America and I don't think they compare. British India had the largest railway network in the world, latin america had no industry to speak of.
Click to expand...

you're thinking of the wrong type of industry. Latin american investments were more for raw materials than anything, brazilian rubber and so on.
 
JoeGiavani said:
Clearly it was pissed away because until about 20 years ago virtually all of Latin America was a sinkhole. It's changed in recent years, and it'll change more in the future, but compare the state of British India in 1930 to Latin America and I don't think they compare. British India had the largest railway network in the world, latin america had no industry to speak of.
Click to expand...

I couldn't comment about railways, but comparative advantage dictated that Latin America remain industrialized regardless. Cash crops and the like were where it was at. Still, I'm not surprised that a British ruled India would make better use of capital than whatever dictator was in power that week in Hispanic America.
 
This is a really good idea. Maybe a variant version of this could be used to simulate the congresses held between the nations making up the Holy Alliance, too. They were pretty keen on maintaining a certain balance of power in Europe.
 
Nevil said:
In Vic you always no matter who you were playing put the education slider at max and left it there. This was not a strategic choice.

You should have a law or national decision to upgrade the educational establishment from
none to low.
low to medium.
medium to high.
and high to universal.
The cost of each step should be very high (1 year of gdp) this would represent the capital cost of building schools and universities etc.
This would multiply the cost and benefit of funding education

Also the result of education from the slider should be non-liner

Education slider / Literacy change
0% -10%
10% -6.2%
20% -2.8%
30% +0.2%
40% +3.8%
50% +5 %
60% +6.8 %
70% +8.2%
80% +9.2%
90% +9.8%
100% +10%

This would both capture the idea of building better schools and the idea of diminishing returns from the investment.

Cheers
Nevil
Click to expand...

Yes. Education should be just like social reforms.

And please remove the exploit of "having social reforms but not funding them but still getting immigrants". It made no sense.
 
Yeah, VIP covers a lot of this already. Including a Taiping 'nation'. It doesn't seem to put up much of a fight, but still.
 
Hardstuff said:
Question: Would my UK capitalists automatically invest in foreign regions? Would I be able to encourage or prevent this? (tariffs?)
Click to expand...

I would imagine they would by default, and it would be difficult to block. I suppose high tariffs would work towards supressing it, though.

As to encouragment, I imagine you could have a diplomatic option 'Pressure nation X to open market X', so I could find a country that had a lot of undeveloped resource X and pressure them to open that market to my investors.

I imagine you could also subsidize capitalist investment in various ways. I'd love to be able to issue incentives to encourage investment. Railroads cost 1500 to build, and I'll throw out a subsidy... I'll pay the first 200 or 500 (up to half, maybe) of the cost for any capitalist who wants to build a railroad. I'll pay 35% of the cost to subsidize artillery factories, 25% of steel factories, and 10% for luxury furniture or clothes.

Basically, for most countries I think Paradox should throw out the whole idea of the player/nation directly controlling, buying, and trading resources. If your capitalists need cloth for their factory they should be the ones paying for it. You should be making YOUR money off taxing them, and spending THAT money on gunboats and soldiers to protect your 'investments' (not personally buying furniture on behalf of the Crown of England). HOWEVER, the game should have a clear way of telling you: "Sir! Our capitalists are having a difficult time affording cloth! Our industries could be far more profitable!"

Then you have choices beyond just clicking 'Buy cloth'.
* Do you slash your tariffs across the board?
* Perhaps you just exempt the cloth industry from tariffs (expect capitalists in other industries to complain of favoritism.)
*Maybe you can negotiate a trade treaty with a country that exports cloth and iron to give your capitalists a better deal on bulk purchases.
*You could heavily subsidize wool ranches, cotton plantations, and fabric factories to develop self-sufficient industries at home.
*Smack Argentina around and force them to hand over their wool industry to your capitalists, who can now get nearly free wool and thus have cloth factories back home able to operate much cheeper, thus the 'invisible hand' steps in and soon your industries are humming along.
 
I'd like to see industrial resources (metal+coal) outside Europe (South America, Africa, more places in Asia). Or the possibility to look for such.

The need to produce/purchase enough food in order to stop your pops from dying and emigrating out. So agriculture won't be neglected.

Map that is area-conserving.
 
Different Markets

I think it would be nice to have the world market seperated, somewhat. What I would propose is to have a "Global Market", a "Domestic Market", and a "Colonial Market". Here is what I would propose be the differences in these markets:

Global Market - this is the trade that you do with foreign countries. You can buy and sell to whomever you choose, though of course you would have to pay the tariffs, as would they.

Domestic Market - this is the market inside of your home nation (the "states" - not "colonies"). Your POPs get their needs from this market, and subsequently pay less for these needs than what they would do if they had to buy these goods from abroad and the global market.

Colonial Market - this is the market in your colonies. Historically these markets became more important later on in the 19th century, and would be one (perhaps the most significant) incentive to colonise. You receive and sell goods in this market for a lower price, though you may receive a higher profit yield by selling such goods on the global market.

So, what do people think? Personally I don't like how in Victoria it is all modelled as a single market, and I think the seperation of the markets would provide for a more in-depth economic system, fitting for the time.

I should also mention that this 'seperation of the markets' idea was inspired by AGEOD's upcoming "Vainglory of Nations", though they haven't been so specific as to mention what the differences are, as of yet (that I know of, anyway). But yes, I think the world market of Victoria should be seperated into the respective markets, each with different traits.
 
Although I would love to see conferences in the game, I'm afraid that these are too complex. The amount of conflictuous interests and conflictuous demands and requests of the said conferences, not speaking about the personalities of all plenipotenciaries which definetly influenced the outcome for each country in the conference paves a scenario all too complex for a simple game A.I. to handle. If anything, this I would leave for an expansion, and even then I doubt such a thing would come to happen in a game with any degree of realism.
 
Jolt said:
Although I would love to see conferences in the game, I'm afraid that these are too complex. The amount of conflictuous interests and conflictuous demands and requests of the said conferences, not speaking about the personalities of all plenipotenciaries which definetly influenced the outcome for each country in the conference paves a scenario all too complex for a simple game A.I. to handle. If anything, this I would leave for an expansion, and even then I doubt such a thing would come to happen in a game with any degree of realism.
Click to expand...

Actually, if the game can recognize Spheres of Influence, then it shouldn't be too hard to graft an AI that can negotiate a realistic treaty. Depending on the power of said nation, the power of the other nation, the demographics of it, the potential money-making and resource potential of the provinces at hand, the opinion of it's neighbors and influential powers, ect, ect. Just make them number values, with massive priority to "border" provinces and the possibilities of making 'buffer' states, which would increase the SoI, such and such.
 
The Domestic/Colonial markets are already properly modeled in Victoria 1. POPs will buy their goods domestically whenever possible, because it exempts them from tariff taxes, which can only be positive as far as Vicky 1 is concerned. Negative spending in Victoria to 'subsudize' foreign goods has been broken for years, and spending there amounts to wasting money.
 
IIRC the true strength of the British Empire wasn't in colonial resources, it was in markets-All of India and much of Africa had to buy all their goods directly from British businesses, allowing them to set prices and make enormous profits.
Hopefully this will be modelled in-game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back