• 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 3 - Dev Diary #102 - What’s next after 1.5

16_9.png

Hello and welcome to our Post-Release Plans update dev diary for 1.5. Once again, just as in Dev Diary #79 and Dev Diary #89, we’ll be going over what changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.6, 1.7 and beyond.

Before we get started, a quick note that we are planning to release hotfix 1.5.11 next week. This hotfix addresses a few dozen remaining issues in the 1.5 release, including some rare crashes and out-of-syncs, graphics polish, some military-related modifiers not working as they should, and convoy raiding balance.

Today we will continue talking about the same key four improvement areas as in previous dev diaries, namely Military, Historical Immersion, Diplomacy, Internal Politics and Other for anything that falls outside those four categories.

Just as before, I’ll also be aiming to give you an updated overview of where we stand and where we’re heading by going through each of these four categories and marking on each one with one of the below statuses:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us. Any points that were already marked as Done in previous updates will now be removed from the list, to avoid it growing unmanageably long!
  • Updated: This is a part of the game where we have made some of the improvements and changes that we want to make, but aren’t yet satisfied with where it stands and plan to make further improvements to it in future updates such as 1.6, 1.7 and so on. Note that this section will mainly focus on updates made in 1.4 and 1.5.
  • Not Updated: This is a part of the game where we haven’t yet released any of our planned changes/improvements in any currently released updates but still plan to do so for future updates.
  • New: This is a planned change or improvement that is newly added, i.e. wasn’t present on the list in Dev Diary #89.
  • Reconsidered: This is a previously planned change or improvement that we have reconsidered our approach to how to tackle from previous updates. For these points we will explain what our new plans are, and change the list appropriately in future updates.

Lastly in the ‘things that haven’t changed’, we will still only be talking about improvements, changes and new features that are part of planned free updates in this dev diary. I will also remind you that this is not an exhaustive list of the things we are going to do, and that something being ‘Done’ doesn’t mean we’re not going to bugfix, balance or make UX improvements to it afterwards. Right, that’s enough of repeating myself, onto the actual content of the dev diary!

Post Launch 3.png

Military​

Done
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
    • The military rework in 1.5 completely overhauled the interface and the addition of discrete armies makes it far easier to see where your soldiers are and what they are doing. We still have UX polish work to do here, but this is otherwise done.
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
    • The 1.5 military rework changed navies to work on a fleet basis, to have a visual representation on the map and to always operate in a specific node, which addresses the vast majority of the issues listed above. As with armies, there are still some UX quirks to work out here, but otherwise we consider this done.
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
    • With the addition of front consolidation in 1.5 and the ability to split formations to cover more fronts, this should no longer be a major issue. There may still be bugs that cause unintentional front splitting, and we will of course fix those as they pop up.
  • Adding systems for organizing your generals and admirals into discrete armies and navies to allow more control over geographic positioning, military composition and unit specialization
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
  • Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
  • Adding more on-map graphics for armies and navies, including soldiers on the map
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
New:
  • Turning individual ships into proper pieces of military hardware that can be built, sunk and repaired rather than just being manpower packages.
Not Updated:
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers

Historical Immersion​

Updated:
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
    • This is mostly done but there are still some issues with certain pieces of content, particularly the Meiji Restoration that the AI still struggles with.
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada don’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
    • Both Italian and German Unifications received some key improvements in 1.4 and 1.5, but we’re still not entirely happy with these and plan to do some further improvements before we consider this done.
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way
    • As before, this is something we are continuing to work on in every update. The highest priority improvements planned here is to make the AI more ‘active’ on the world stage and to make the diplomatic AI in particular feel less random and volatile.
  • Going through the base game Journal Entries and events and making improvements and additions to ensure that they feel meaningful and impactful for players to interact with
    • Several pieces of content such as Scramble for Africa had improvements and changes made to them in 1.5 but we are not done with this.
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries
    • Companies, country-unique IGs and a number of new State Traits were added in 1.4/1.5, along with several new pieces of regional content, but this is a point we are also aiming to continue to improve on in upcoming updates.

Diplomacy​

Done:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, i.e. the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land for support
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
Updated:
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action
    • Increasing and decreasing autonomy as well as imposing laws on subjects was added in 1.5, but we still want to add more ways to interact with your subjects in the next couple of updates.
New:
  • Have Interest Groups weigh in on diplomacy, for example having the Armed Forces disapprove of an alliance with a country that recently took land from you due to revanchism
  • Make declaring and holding onto diplomatic Interests a more rewarding and challenging aspect of global empire-building
Not Updated:
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Done:
  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style
    • There are now specific laws for late-game autocracies such as One Party State and generally both more benefits to holding on to power and more pushback against it. This is in ‘done’ not because we no longer want to do it, but because we consider further improvements to this part of the ‘New’ points about legitimacy and national pride below.
Updated:
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • We have continued to add more laws and ideologies to the game in 1.4/1.5 but this is still an ongoing area for improvement, particularly in improving on the migration law group to be more about what kind of migration you want to encourage/discourage rather than whether it’s allowed at all.
New:
  • Turn legitimacy into a more interesting mechanic, where the strength of a government depends on their successes and failures, and highly legitimate governments can’t simply be ousted at a whim but have to be undermined first.
  • Introduce a concept of national pride which can increase or decrease depending on a country’s actions and which ties directly into legitimacy.
  • Have discrimination not be a purely binary status and reflect forms of discrimination aside from what’s written in the law, as well as making assimilation into a more meaningful mechanic in the process.

Other​

Done:
  • Improving Alerts and the Current Situation widget to provide more useful and actionable information.
    • The Current Situation and Alert system is now fully customizable and you can choose which information you want presented as an alert, important action (or not at all)
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
    • This was done through a combination of Local Prices and Companies in the 1.5 update, so that it now matters a lot more what you build where
New:
  • Improve on Companies by turning them into actual actors in your country that can own/expand buildings and interact with characters/politics.

Not Updated
  • Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.

So as always, when can you expect all this? As usual, I’m not able to make specific promises, but what we have planned next is a standalone free update (1.6) that will be primarily focused on polishing the game (bug fixing, AI improvements, performance improvements and so on), so for that one you should mainly expect points that are about improving existing systems to be done, rather than ones that are about adding brand new systems and major features. In particular, Historical Immersion has several ongoing points like this and you should see some progress on that front. I’ll end this dev diary with one final bit of repeating myself by reminding you yet again that this list only covers changes and additions that will be part of free updates.

That’s all for this time! The next dev diary will be after the holidays in January and then we'll talk more in detail about Update 1.6. We hope you have a lovely holiday season and a happy New Year!
 
  • 150Like
  • 66Love
  • 11
  • 11
  • 2Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
when will i be able to do a diplomatic play to return claims to my subjects? (or ideally as well, diploplay to conquer homelands sharing same culture as subject primaries) pleaseeeeee @Wizzington
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Front breaking is done? Funny, that's not what I saw just today in 1.5.10. Attacking Russia as Krakow and Austria, France, Italy as allies for greater Poland and Mazovia, designated Mazovia as a strategic objective.
Fighting is going on, then Mazovia suddenly flips to occupied by Prussia, Prussia is not even in a war and not at war with Russia. Fronts completely disappear for a bit then re-appear as separate and armies are running around as headless chickens. How can a version with number "1.5.10" be so full of bugs?
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes indeed. Warfare is so full of bugs I would call it broken even. Also the mechanics to the fronts going forward and backward do not make any sense when you have reserves in the frontline, how come you lose occupation when just 1 army is in a battle? It doesn't make any sense right now. You also have the problem of puppets or AI allies joining wars and being nothing but a hindrance.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I am pleasantly surprised how the newest update reshaped the game. Reminds me of Imperator...

Happy to see that Vicky is getting the love it deserves.

I hope that at some point, Imperator will be brought back, as it has so much potential.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I hope that at some point, Imperator will be brought back, as it has so much potential.
I have a saying in my mother tongue: "when the crawfish whistles from the mountain", which means "not on your life".
I guess PDX analogy could be: "this'll happen when the Eagles march again".
 
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
"Done
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes"


    Are you serious? First things first: The way battles are created are still very shady, and not comprihensible.
    -No terrain modifiers for battles
    -Only terrain modifier shown, 4 exemple for plains battle is "combat width:1.5". No way to know what it is, based on what, and how does it influence what size the battle is. It's a vague mix of that, infrastructure, and god knows what else. Have a 100k army against another 100k army with 4 generals, no way to know if it will spawn a 50vs50 battle, a 100vs100 or a 5 vs60 (as it happens a lot still). My armies attacking into 20x the enemy troops and getting massacred still happens a lot and no way to influence it.
    -Unit travel time: have seen this and mentioned 1000 times, ITS TOO FAST! CAN'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. Both navies and armies, scale down travel time to realistic times pls!

    OTHER THINGS:

    -Attrition is too high, mods already trying to fix it, but there was a guy who said that attrition casulties and death casulties calculations shuld be separated, so that fixing attrition with mods wouldn't influence battle deaths.
    -Need for a real logistics system with logistics weight etc.... This would just add so much, Make naval invasions realistics too, limited, difficoult and costly as they were in history, no 500k armies landing in 1840. Some suply system like in hoi4 that influences attrition too and all.

    If all of this would be adressed, the combat would be pretty much set up in it's best form and good to go!

    PS: Super good news on navies recieving actual ships. Super excited for that! Keep the good work up.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I am pleasantly surprised how the newest update reshaped the game. Reminds me of Imperator...
In the sense that Paradox spent a ton of effort patching it into being a good game then dropped it?
 
  • 5Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
There is a possible system overhaul I believe the game could really use. Being significant part of both military and diplomaci (and also some eco) is Confict Escalation.
That is once two nations are in confict, it doesn't tend to start with massive war, (nevermind total war), and often no overt war at all.
The proposed system would allow to escalate conflict along a "ladder" of increasingly dedicated (and expensive) efforts to destabilize an oponent, starting with purely diplomatic means, as it escalates including economic ones, then hybrid military (sabotage, border skirmishes), limited war, total war being pretty much the last step.
Participants can go both "up or down the ladder" over time, being higher up "passivly" generating more infamy (an possibly taking more diplo cap).
As such, for example, it would be possible to deescalate war without ending the conflict and going into cooldown. Or finally have a decent way for A.I. to interfere, in a limited way.
It also seems like a robust enought system so that it would not need complete overhaul for the rest of the game life-span.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Military​

  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers

Diplomacy​

  • Have Interest Groups weigh in on diplomacy, for example having the Armed Forces disapprove of an alliance with a country that recently took land from you due to revanchism

Internal Politics​

  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • We have continued to add more laws and ideologies to the game in 1.4/1.5 but this is still an ongoing area for improvement, particularly in improving on the migration law group to be more about what kind of migration you want to encourage/discourage rather than whether it’s allowed at all.
  • Turn legitimacy into a more interesting mechanic, where the strength of a government depends on their successes and failures, and highly legitimate governments can’t simply be ousted at a whim but have to be undermined first.
  • Introduce a concept of national pride which can increase or decrease depending on a country’s actions and which ties directly into legitimacy.
  • Have discrimination not be a purely binary status and reflect forms of discrimination aside from what’s written in the law, as well as making assimilation into a more meaningful mechanic in the process.

Other​

  • Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.
Really happy to see all of these. I love that a greater level of detail in the discrimination mechanic is part of that list and will delude myself in taking a tiny fraction of credit for getting it there.

Done:
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
    • This was done through a combination of Local Prices and Companies in the 1.5 update, so that it now matters a lot more what you build where
These changes are definitely appreciated, and did have a great impact on the strategic depth of the economic game loop. But I would prefer if that overarching goal is not already put back on the shelf.

I think you can close the book on the local pricing mechanic. But as recent discussion has shown, there is more to do here. In particular changes should be made to address the fact that building as much as possible at all times is currently the optimal strategy. So it's worrying that you are already marking the entire topic of the economic loop as completed.

  • Improve on Companies by turning them into actual actors in your country that can own/expand buildings and interact with characters/politics.
Personally I would not like to see that. The current companies mechanic is very gamey (pick your bonus and power it up) - I am not a fan of it but at least it is self contained as a mechanic.

The way it is currently designed is not very well suited to making it more "realistic" and having it interact with other game mechanics that are more simulationist, that would just further exacerbate the flaws companies already have. And personally, would make them less ignorable. The fact that I can just "pick" my companies when available and forget about them is what makes this system tolerable to me. Making it more important would by itself already make the companies feature worse.


Finally, I am a bit concerned that UI and UX do not show up in this list (almost) at all. Limiting your diagnosis of issues with the UI to recently added/changed features would be a serious mistake. I will not mince words: The UI the game shipped with is flawed across all game systems and a significant driver of player tedium and frustration. It does not matter how great and well designed the new features and changes are, in the end players will spend most of their time struggling with the UI to find information and take the actions they desire, and it will result in a negative playing experience. It would also be a huge missed opportunity because there are many places where the UI could be significantly improved with rather limited changes, compared to new game systems that need to be implemented, AI developed, and balanced, and playtested.

Take a look at the link in my signature for examples of what the typical problems a player experiences with the UI are - you do not have to agree with my proposed solution but it includes an extensive illustration of the problem. I hope it is only not showing up on the agenda because UI improvements are difficult to fit into specific categories - and I definitely hope that this categorisation isn't blinding you to the fact that UI improvements are definitely needed.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
View attachment 1060285
I am so glad to read that, that was one of my main complaints in the Beta, glad to see the devs also see the companies potential!

My preference would be for companies to be - more or less - equivalent to countries with no land, in terms of what they can do and how you can interact with them.

In fact, if they were the intermediary through which all economic activity were conducted, it would introduce such a meaningful layer of complexity. Think of all the different ways that could play out.

You could have a laissez faire society with a large number of companies fighting each other tooth and nail. You could have vertically integrated companies that own coal and iron mines and steel mills and shipyards. You could have conglomerates like Japanese zaibatsu. Communist states could have state-run companies that have to do the bidding of The Party.

Combine all that with a securities market, and then things get really interesting. You could have a vertically integrated business, partly owned by the state, partly by the workers, and partly by publicly traded shares. Another might be 51% owned by its main competitor, raising antitrust issues.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Getting some great things done, I would however like internal migration to be seperated from external migration if possible, maybe attach such mobility to the serfdom/tenant/homesteading laws, as it was those that historically changed how large internal movements happened (or not). For example many tenant systems were season or time limited and breaking such contracts were not done lightly, especially by the renter.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
OMG Individual proper ships!!! I've been waiting on this since the release, I really hope you implement this ASAP:)! So we would have to build and expand docks that would actually consume ever more complex goods (wood->iron->steel + rubber+ machines+oil) to build actual ships!
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I liked a lot of the recent changes but now once you are big enough to go to war against an Austria or GB the war starts and stays at a stalemate(pre trench warfare). That’s not fun being at war with one nation for 25% of the playable era with no winner is just terrible.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I have to say that the current game is in much better shape as it was 3-4 weeks ago.

Whats sadly completly missing in your to do list is improving the ui / mechanics shown
F.e. I basicly allways have very low (compared to ai) living standard of the poor people at fist like 30 years of the game. And I just dont know why 30% are below their standard .. prices are below 0. They have income left. I just dont know and dont have a way to figure. And I play a lot, how can some1 playing less understand?
Would it somehow be possible to show the results of having a university? Like X Engineers more in last year?
Most obvious example for it is war, the modifiers of combat, the why X troops fight in a fight - its all very hard to understand and therefre sometimes seems/is bugy (maybe devs dont understand themself?)
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I liked a lot of the recent changes but now once you are big enough to go to war against an Austria or GB the war starts and stays at a stalemate(pre trench warfare). That’s not fun being at war with one nation for 25% of the playable era with no winner is just terrible.
You basicly have to try trick ai to win/ have progress on these wars.
But yes this should not be needed.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I beg to differ (yet again).

Conservative and autocratic are not at all interesting, nor viable. That should never be counted as complete, maybe as updated. I develop on this topic below.

There is no way you can get to a viable endgame without the hefty migration bonuses from multiculturalism - and you'll rot in revolutions if you try to pass multiculturalism in an autocratic society.

Also, the economic core loop has NOT been encouraging specialization, since MAPI has been added. If you don't add the basic urban factories to every single territory you own, be sure that the private sector will - and may God help you to manage the production method galore you'll find yourself into.

I basically abandoned Vic3 after 90h due to its horrendous state at launch and first patches. I decided to give it another go now and played up until 150h.

---

Is Egypt even playable?

I've been trying to plat Egypt with Hegemony objectives. Game rules are Standard AI behavior and aggression, autonomous investment pool, all formable and releasable nations, moderate pop consolidation, monument effects enabled, allowing flags and map colors for subjects.

You start with the Ottomans always belligerant towards you, meaning they will attack you, no matter what you do. They start with 4 armies, 162 battalions strong in total, and 33 ships Flotilla (16 light, 17 capital). They will always try to take all your middle east unincorporated states (Palestine, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, Aleppo, and Adana). They also seem to always be able to sway at least one major european power, likely France or Great Britain, to their side. Their economy is immeasurably stronger than yours, starting with 2 Tooling workshops in Bosnia and 6 Iron Mines in Bosnia and Skopia. They also have Tripolitania as a Puppet in your west border, allowing them to divide you to fight in two fronts.

You, on the other hand, start with 0 Iron Mines, 0 Tooling workshops, a shortage of Artillery, Clippers, and Wood, 2 armies with 98 battalions in total, mostly irregular, an ilogical 19 ships Flotilla (with unexplicable 7 frigate and 12 man-o-wars). You have only 3 construction sectors at all at the start date. You have no useful interests and rely on RnG to have any major power support whe the Ottomans inevitably declare war when the 4 years truce ends.

I've tried to improve relations with major powers and Persia to have allies or swayable countries. Note that Defensive pacts don't seem to oblige Persia to aid you (and that even if they will, it won't be enough when a major power joins the war). You seem to need to rely on RnG to have this being able at all, or your run is dead 5 years in.

After about 10 tries, I had RnGod bless me with a run that the Ottomans had no allies and I had the British, managing to win the war and revoke their claims on the great territory of Palestine. I started to industrialize and colonize, managing not to get me into too much trouble and advance through the tech tree. However, my population was always so disgusted by having private schools, instead of religious; or private hospitals, instead of charity; or having monarchy, or not having monarchy, or having poor laws, or not having subsidized wages.... Managing internal pressures was impossible, since every single thing lead to revolution after revolution, and nothing would placate the will of revolting.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I beg to differ (yet again).

Conservative and autocratic are not at all interesting, nor viable. That should never be counted as complete, maybe as updated. I develop on this topic below.

There is no way you can get to a viable endgame without the hefty migration bonuses from multiculturalism - and you'll rot in revolutions if you try to pass multiculturalism in an autocratic society.

Also, the economic core loop has NOT been encouraging specialization, since MAPI has been added. If you don't add the basic urban factories to every single territory you own, be sure that the private sector will - and may God help you to manage the production method galore you'll find yourself into.

I basically abandoned Vic3 after 90h due to its horrendous state at launch and first patches. I decided to give it another go now and played up until 150h.

---

Is Egypt even playable?

I've been trying to plat Egypt with Hegemony objectives. Game rules are Standard AI behavior and aggression, autonomous investment pool, all formable and releasable nations, moderate pop consolidation, monument effects enabled, allowing flags and map colors for subjects.

You start with the Ottomans always belligerant towards you, meaning they will attack you, no matter what you do. They start with 4 armies, 162 battalions strong in total, and 33 ships Flotilla (16 light, 17 capital). They will always try to take all your middle east unincorporated states (Palestine, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, Aleppo, and Adana). They also seem to always be able to sway at least one major european power, likely France or Great Britain, to their side. Their economy is immeasurably stronger than yours, starting with 2 Tooling workshops in Bosnia and 6 Iron Mines in Bosnia and Skopia. They also have Tripolitania as a Puppet in your west border, allowing them to divide you to fight in two fronts.

You, on the other hand, start with 0 Iron Mines, 0 Tooling workshops, a shortage of Artillery, Clippers, and Wood, 2 armies with 98 battalions in total, mostly irregular, an ilogical 19 ships Flotilla (with unexplicable 7 frigate and 12 man-o-wars). You have only 3 construction sectors at all at the start date. You have no useful interests and rely on RnG to have any major power support whe the Ottomans inevitably declare war when the 4 years truce ends.

I've tried to improve relations with major powers and Persia to have allies or swayable countries. Note that Defensive pacts don't seem to oblige Persia to aid you (and that even if they will, it won't be enough when a major power joins the war). You seem to need to rely on RnG to have this being able at all, or your run is dead 5 years in.

After about 10 tries, I had RnGod bless me with a run that the Ottomans had no allies and I had the British, managing to win the war and revoke their claims on the great territory of Palestine. I started to industrialize and colonize, managing not to get me into too much trouble and advance through the tech tree. However, my population was always so disgusted by having private schools, instead of religious; or private hospitals, instead of charity; or having monarchy, or not having monarchy, or having poor laws, or not having subsidized wages.... Managing internal pressures was impossible, since every single thing lead to revolution after revolution, and nothing would placate the will of revolting.
I don't think your desire for each playthrough to teach the same end game state is really a critique of whether or not conservative or autocratic countries are interesting or viable. In my experience they are both.

As for Egypt I'm unclear on how having a more or less historical outcome to the Oriental Crisis is game ruining. It's probably questionable for Egypt to even start independent in the first place. Wanting to defeat the Ottomans (in a conflict that Egypt lost, although they did get some concessions) and complaining the game isn't set up for that is a weird critique.

Personally I would prefer the devs to lean harder into a historical setup. As fun as EU4 is I hope the devs stay away from the everyone nation can be a superpower mentality, especially within Vic3's relatively short timeframe.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This also gets at how weird sea node-based convoy escorts are. Conceptually, when escorts are enabled on a route a convoy should form with its escort at one end of the route and they should travel the whole route together. The escort doesn't actually care about the vast area of a sea node because it's only ever covering the tiny patch its convoy is currently in.

But since afaik goods don't exist in Vic 3, only rates of goods, the game can't represent things like "every x (days/weeks/months) a new convoy leaves from the source of this route with that many (days/weeks/months)' worth of goods, escorted by whichever portion of the escort fleet was available at that port at that time, and y (days/weeks/months) later those goods arrive at the other end, less any portion sunk along the way, then the escort returns to pick up a new convoy" so we're stuck with this weird numerical abstraction of what a convoy even is.
Even if the transportation of the goods themselves are not modelled, I think it's not unimaginable to set one fleet to safeguard, rather than a node, the goods transported to a certain port (or, on the very least, towards another country). That way, you can safeguard the trade done there, and as the trade routes don't update dynamically, you can still choose to both attack and protect such trade routes. And by doing so, it makes protecting your or your juniors' market access, or attacking others' ones a bit more engaging.

And in regards to how to present it, you can either make them patrol on random nodes across the route, or else make them do fake node travels back and forth such route.
 
I don't think your desire for each playthrough to teach the same end game state is really a critique of whether or not conservative or autocratic countries are interesting or viable. In my experience they are both.

As for Egypt I'm unclear on how having a more or less historical outcome to the Oriental Crisis is game ruining. It's probably questionable for Egypt to even start independent in the first place. Wanting to defeat the Ottomans (in a conflict that Egypt lost, although they did get some concessions) and complaining the game isn't set up for that is a weird critique.

Personally I would prefer the devs to lean harder into a historical setup. As fun as EU4 is I hope the devs stay away from the everyone nation can be a superpower mentality, especially within Vic3's relatively short timeframe.

Egypt is a recommended country for Hegemony, so it should be playable. Losing the starting war is a given if you don't get RnG to help you out on swayable nations. You could keep playing after losing that war, but so far behind... The war happens the first 5 years, so best to restart.

My best run so far I got Austrian help in the first war and beat the Ottomans by myself the second time, 10 years in. Also defeated US naval invasion to make a treaty port in Transjordan, a very historically known event.

This is a game that simulates weird history on an arbitrary base setting of our Earth. I don't actually know how much effort have the devs put into making Egypt historically accurate. Given the ammout put into Brazil, I reckon it is not much.

By the way, I guess making history alternates is a valid way to play. EU4 seems to sometimes spawn Mamluks in Australia. I guess I should try that.

***
Universities are working kind of weird, since they always employ up completely and immediately. This also makes the Journal entry to make a level 10 university in Economic Dominance ruleset quite unbalanced.
 
I beg to differ (yet again).

Conservative and autocratic are not at all interesting, nor viable. That should never be counted as complete, maybe as updated. I develop on this topic below.

There is no way you can get to a viable endgame without the hefty migration bonuses from multiculturalism - and you'll rot in revolutions if you try to pass multiculturalism in an autocratic society.
Why are you trying to play a liberal society endgame (passing multiculturalism) when you're claiming to play a conservative autocratic society?
 
  • 4
Reactions: