• 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 #25 - The Cost of War

16_9 (6).jpg

Today marks the final entry in our 4-part overview of the warfare mechanics of Victoria 3. If you’re just tuning in now, we have previously covered The Concept of War, Fronts and Generals, and Navies and Admirals which introduces many of the core concepts fleshed out in this diary.

That war costs substantial money and resources is hardly a novel concept. Most strategy games impose a cost for creating military units, some have upkeep costs, and even in Pop-less Paradox GSGs a metric such as a Manpower pool often has to be regenerated in order to replenish damaged units. A few games even encourage you to peace-out of wars that are so costly your treasury can’t bear the expense for as long as it takes to win, even if you still have armies left standing.

In Victoria 3 we aim to take this to the next level by modelling the truly astronomical, often lasting expenses of war in the economic system. This includes letting players and Pops profit off of wars; employ economic tools such as trade disruptions to gain military leverage; encourage upgrading not only your military but also industrial output to match; reform your Laws to fit your military to your economy; ensure your Infrastructure is sufficient to maintain your country while at war; and invest in medical corps and medicine to treat your population traumatized by the frontlines.

The intention here is not only to give the player a lot of economic levers to pull to prepare their country for war, although that is certainly part of it. A big reason for making wars approach the real-life cost is to encourage the player to think hard about the opportunity cost of war - that is, what you’re missing out on by spending your resources on war instead of something else - and incentivize solving your diplomatic conflicts before war breaks out. If war was a cost-effective way both of increasing your power and decreasing your enemy’s power, diplomacy would be relegated to nothing but faux formalities before fighting begins. But if neither party truly desires a war, no matter the power discrepancy between them, that’s when the Diplomatic Play intimidation game to see who blinks first can become real and tense.

It also means that it’s a skill to know when to stop. If war was an all-or-nothing affair this would not be an issue, but in Victoria 3 wars rarely result in one side getting everything they asked for (as we will learn more about next week, when we cover the Peace Deals system). Once you have hurt your enemy enough you might accept a consolation prize and sign a truce, knowing you will recover better over the next five years than they will.

With that said, let’s dig into the details.

Your ability to sustain your war machine is of crucial importance in peace as well as war. At the start of the game many countries can get away with maintaining an army of self-supporting Irregular Infantry to keep the costs of arms down, but this won’t be possible for long. And while wages might be affordable when your country is underdeveloped, increased productivity and labor competition will eventually raise expectations.
dd25-1.PNG

Your country’s Army Model is a type of Law that governs who makes up your military and how they are organized. We currently have four Army Models planned:

Under a Peasant Levy model, a permanent military force supported by Barracks is non-existent or minimal in size. Instead the country may raise large numbers of conscripted levies of irregulars during wartime, led by Officers originating from the aristocracy. This model is cheap to maintain during peacetime but can get very expensive (particularly in lives) during war. Conscripted Battalions can also take a long time to organize, and provide no Power Projection that affects the country’s Prestige.

The National Militia model limits your standing army and Power Projection in much the same way as Peasant Levies, but permits you to conscript a large part of your population into a well-rounded national defense force if needed. These conscripted troops cannot be mobilized and are therefore automatically assigned to their local garrisons, unavailable to Generals to use to advance Fronts. It’s the model of choice for countries who want to focus on homeland defense, or countries desiring to democratize the military and limit the power of the Armed Forces.

Mass Conscription becomes available once you have unlocked the Society “tech” Nationalism. It lets you enlist the same large number of conscripts as National Militia but does not limit the size of your standing army, and all these conscripts are assigned under Generals as needed. In addition, conscripts are trained faster but are limited to infantry troops only. This is the correct choice for countries fighting no-holds-barred existential conflicts where sending regular waves of fresh meat to the frontlines is imperative.

A Regular Army model lets a country maintain an army of any size even in peacetime. While it also permits for conscription of a smaller number of civilians as needed, its standing army is the pride of the nation and confers considerable Prestige onto it. This model has the greatest flexibility in terms of military Production Methods, letting countries configure their armies without restrictions. Technologically advanced countries relying on more expensive crack troops rather than sheer numbers favor this Law.

Like all Laws, changing your Army Model will be popular with some Interest Groups and not with others, and in most cases you need to have at least a semi-legitimate government that favors the Law in order to have a chance to pass it without major complications. The icons you see for these Laws are not yet finalized.
dd25-2.PNG

Conscripting the civilian population into military service is an option available to all countries, but only during wartime or when the country is at threat of war (i.e. when it is actively participating in a Diplomatic Play). Conscripted Battalions do not Project Power and therefore do not impart Prestige, and under some Army Models they do not have access to certain advanced Production Methods that require specialized training.

Conscripts can be activated state by state or all across your country at once. Activating conscripts creates a Conscription Center in the state where civilians are recruited into temporary military service, and the cost of these conscripts are only incurred as they become active. This means relying on conscripting civilians as needed can be a compelling strategy to keep the military budget down, but it does not come without its own costs.

First and foremost, when the Conscription Center appears, recruited Pops will leave their regular places of work en masse which could cause major temporary disruptions to your nation’s economy. If the conscripts in a certain state happen to primarily originate from the lower strata of its underpaying Lead Mines, this will reduce output and thereby affect the Glasswork and Munitions Plants that consume the lead produced in your market, which in turn will impact all its Urban Centers as well as your very military machinery. If you have enough Pops in search of labor this situation will correct itself over time as the Lead Mines rehire their lost workers, but in the long run this simple action of initiating conscription in a single state will still mean a shift in Wealth distribution, political allegiances, population distribution, industrial profitability, and so on. Even after a successfully prosecuted war those men returning home alive may need to look for new opportunities to regain their old Standard of Living. Everything has consequences.

Second, conscripted Battalions are always created from scratch which can take a lot of time. This means they lose any experience gained in the last armed conflict as they stand down, while your standing army units will get more and more impressive over time. Soldier for soldier, conscripts give you less bang for your buck.

Third, conscripted Battalions are distributed among your Generals by their normal Rank-based proportions and aren’t automatically mobilized as soon as they emerge. So first the conscript Battalions need to be recruited and created from scratch, and then any conscript Battalions assigned to mobilized Generals must also mobilize in order to be able to leave for the front. As we explored in the Front and Generals diary, when such a large number of Battalions are raised all at once it is Infrastructure that governs how quickly they will be able to get ready, so this needs to be taken into account when choosing where to recruit your conscripts.

While all of the above happens automatically with the press of a button, the impact can be complex and will be experienced over time. Choosing to activate conscripts in the populous but rural vineyard valleys of Rhone will have a very different effect on France than activating conscripts in industrialized, well-connected Paris.

Mass Mobilization may provide access to vast numbers of fighting men, but redirecting up to 25 percent of your capable workforce to the war effort (in this case 60 Battalions, or the equivalent workforce required to staff about 12 levels of farms, mines, or manufacturing industries) could play a real number on your economy. These visuals are a work in progress, but demonstrates how the player functionally interacts with the map through the “lens” system either through clicking directly on regions of the map or by selecting options from a list.
dd25-3.PNG

A very tangible cost is of course the actual money you are spending on military goods for mobilized troops in the field. While Barracks consume military goods at all times in proportion to the number of Battalions it supports, units that are mobilized consume twice the normal maintenance level of goods. Not only does this double the quantity you need to buy, it also puts a lot of additional demand on the goods, raising the price-per-unit as well. As long as they can keep their production levels steady, your domestic Arms Industries, Munition Plants, and War Machine Industries will see profits skyrocket off of this increased consumption of your mobilized troops.

This also means other nations - allies or neutral parties - will see the sudden benefit of exporting arms to you. If you normally export military goods to others you may wish to cancel these routes to keep prices down, while if neutral parties import arms from you this may be a good time to Embargo (or at least Tariff) these goods. Every little bit helps your treasury and ultimately your frontline troops.

Trade routes criss-crossing the ocean are susceptible to your enemy’s Convoy Raiding fleets. Until a patrol discovers them and sends them to home base for repairs, such a fleet can do considerable damage both to your supply network as a whole (affecting all Trade Routes as well as the supply of overseas Generals) and to some shipping lanes in particular, possibly crippling your country’s access to strategic goods like Small Arms or hard-to-find imports such as Radios. Compromising a country’s access to industrial, luxury, or even staple goods can also be devastating to their ability to stay in the war, as we will learn more about next week!

Convoy Raiding fleets can also damage connections to overseas markets, for example by compromising the East India Company’s connection to London. This could potentially devastate the economies of clusters of dozens of states who may have come to rely on such a connection to survive, particularly if their economies aren’t locally well-balanced but relying on cash crops or specialized manufacturing.

Many countries rely on foreign trade to supply them not only with the additional arms they require during wartime, but also the consumer goods required to keep morale up on the home front in this difficult time. Ending up on the opposite side of your trading partners during Diplomatic Plays could be catastrophic for the war effort. On this screenshot we can see the British used to supply the Ottomans with 100 units of Artillery each week, but with Great Britain now siding with Russia they will have to try to find a new trading partner as soon as possible - or try to hold the Russians off despite an Artillery shortage. Another potential crisis the Ottomans have to deal with is the imminent stoppage of a smaller amount of Liquor and enormous quantities of Luxury Clothes, at least the latter of which is prone to make many wealthy Pops feel this war might carry too high a price.

(on this screenshot we can also see some suspiciously round numbers of Available vs Required Convoys - these are currently placeholder values, which will be replaced with values properly scaled to the number of units traded across the number of nodes)

dd25-4.PNG

The goods, technologies, and in some cases Laws you have access to practically limit which military Production Methods you have available to you. These determine the composition of your army and navy and include both “upgrades” and “options”. As always, this list is not finalized but represents what is in the current build of the game only.

Your Infantry Organization Production Methods govern the organization and doctrines of your army’s core fighting force. They consume mostly Small Arms and Ammunition and include Irregular, Line, Skirmish, Trench, and Squad Infantry. Offense, Defense, and Training Rate are the most commonly affected attributes.

Artillery Support Production Methods consume expensive Artillery and Ammunition to boost the Offense, Morale Damage, Kill Rate, and Devastation attributes of the Battalions. Cannons, Mobile, Shrapnel, and Siege Artillery are represented.

Your Battalions’ Mobility options affect their ability to get around and scout the terrain, impacting their ability to do damage during an Offense and capture larger amounts of territory at the conclusion of a won battle. Cavalry forces are the default, which can eventually be supplemented with Bicycle Messengers, and after the turn of the century Aerial Reconnaissance or even an Armored Division supplied by late-game War Machines Industries producing Aeroplanes and Tanks.

Your standing army can unlock various Specialist Companies for Barracks to focus on. These include Machine Gunners, Infiltrators, Flamethrower Companies, and Chemical Weapon Specialists. These specialists consume various goods to inflict quite specific effects.

Medical Aid determines what sort of battlefield medicine your troops have access to, from the default of Wound Dressing, through First Aid, to fully fledged Field Hospitals. These consume Fabric and Opium to treat the sick and wounded to minimize the casualties inflicted by attrition and combat alike.

Access to Opium permits you to care for your injured population during wartime, but while the country is at peace the excess Opium floating around your market may result in Pops developing an unhealthy Obsession with the drug. This is less of a problem if you are the producer than if you’re relying on imports for your supply, of course.
dd25-5.PNG

Similarly, Naval Bases also consume goods to produce Flotillas with different attributes. These are due for a design pass so I won’t go into details which are prone to change anyway. But in broad strokes, the fundamental Production Method determines the class of the central vessel that defines each Flotilla: is this a Man-o-War, Ironclad, Monitor, Dreadnought, or Battleship? In addition to the class of your central vessel, do you have Submarines or even Aeroplane Carriers accompanying your fleet? All these have pros and cons for different types of missions, letting you specialize your fleet for protecting or attacking trade routes, performing naval invasions, or blockading ports.

If you’ve paid especially close attention you might now ask: we know you must mobilize your army and Generals to see effective use of them in wartime, but what about mobilizing your navy and Admirals? In fact, navies are considered to always be ready and in active service and do not need mobilization. You also cannot recruit conscripts to start manning your warships just as a war breaks out, for obvious reasons. This means expanding and upgrading your navy is both a long-term process and a long-term investment. Navies are excellent at Projecting Power however, so while an impressive navy might not be particularly useful outside of armed conflict it will at least grant you considerable Prestige even as it burns its way through your treasury.

Since navies do not cost any more during war than in peace you may as well use them! You can set up most Orders for your Admirals any time, even while at peace. Once they spot ships flying hostile flags they will take action automatically.

A less direct cost of war which nonetheless can have severe consequences is Devastation. This reflects direct damage to an entire state and its infrastructure caused by battles transpiring in that state. Particularly large degrees of Devastation is inflicted by battles involving heavy and sustained artillery barrages. Devastation directly impacts Infrastructure and thereby Market Access, making the state economically unsustainable. It also tends to cause migration away from the state, an increase in Pop mortality, and other very detrimental effects. After the war this damage will be gradually reversed, but this rebuilding effort can take a long time and cause a lot of economic upheaval in the process.

Wallachia and surroundings before and after substantial Devastation has been inflicted on the region. Numbers are, as always, a work in progress.
dd25-6.png

Finally, of course, there is the human cost of war. Some wars end with only a few hundred casualties on both sides; some wars claim millions of lives with no peace deal in sight. In Victoria 3 it is your actual population who fight and die for your causes - the same population that harvest your fields and work at your assembly lines, who vote for their preferred party or rebel against your enlightened rule, who learn to read and write or pack up and move in search of greener pastures.

Many men fall in battle of course, but more commonly they perish on the way to the battle, or after the battle, whether from disease, starvation, infections, or exposure. Simply mobilizing your forces to the front will increase their risk of dying or suffering lifelong disability. To counteract this you can research and invest in good frontline medical care, or favor Generals with proven ability to reduce such needless casualties.

Those casualties who do not recover from their injuries and return to the frontline will either return home as Dependents or die outright. As a result of both of these effects, after a major war your Pops are likely to consist of an outsized proportion of Dependents to Workforce. While this will self-adjust over time (especially if birth rate is high) there may well be a post-war period where you’re forced to deal with a large portion of your population not being economically productive. It’s in cases like these you’ll be glad you’ve enacted a good Pension System to ease this impact during the recovery period.

In closing and to reiterate, Victoria 3 emphasizes the cost of war for several reasons, including:
  • It raises the stakes and thus increases the payoff for solving conflicts diplomatically
  • It creates meaningful economic interplays between the economy and military, increasing the need to prepare and build a reliable “engine”
  • It enables cost/benefit analysis as a strategic tool, making the best strategist not necessarily the one that uses overwhelming force but the one that uses just enough force to get what they want

Next week we will learn more about how you can leverage the effects of these exorbitant costs by making Peace Deals favoring you look relatively attractive to your opponent. Until then!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 247Like
  • 190Love
  • 19
  • 13
  • 6
Reactions:
But if the only reality we're aloud to conform to is this one what's the point of playing the game?

I agree blobbing should be really hard and definitely not the focus, but the game needs to let smaller nations do more than they may have in history if its going to be fun to play them for lots of people.
There are many games like that, EU4 included. I'd rather see something different this time. I guess the game will have different difficulties but that's what I'd like to see on normal difficulty, rather than the nth risk but on pc.
It also seem achieving a different approach to "fun" is what the devs are trying to do, and I support them. I'd be pissed off if they backpedalled because people complained while they have dozens of strategy games that play the way they like.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
When you draft/conscript people into your armies, does it involve entire “pops” or are a certain number of the people in the pop just temporarily transferred into military service?
 
I'm reading it as 'pops are moved into Servicemen/Officer professions at a much higher rate whether they like it or not'.

Once the war's over, well, there's no more jobs in the conscription centers, so they need to find new jobs and until that time they are unemployed.

Hope you've got a sturdy pension system running or something.
 
The only thing I’m worrying about at this point are the visuals.

As I 100% get the necessity for that shift, I fear this is going to take away the “epicness” of the game.

I want to see actual fights on the map, troops standing at the front, explosions, etc.

please, at least, give us that.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
It can be fun to play minor powers without having to conquer half a continent as them. You need to remember this game isn't about war and there are other things for you to do.
I think one of the reasons (among others) of why a lot of people tend to gravitate towards conquest & map painting as their primary goal is that its the most distinct visual in-game. If you became a big empire, you can point to the 3-d map and say "I did that in my playthrough."

On the other hand, if your country is a big historical achiever in the arts, sciences, or pop-culture, it isn't well represented visually. Sure you can open a tooltip that says your country has +1000 science score, but a single abstract number isn't the same as experiencing something gratifying. Figuring out how to make peaceful and development goals be more satisfying is a big challenge for the devs and team artists going forward.



There's a bunch of artistic fluff that they could do. If I play as Siam and manage to get several world class science academies/colleges going, I would hope, for example, to be able to open up a periodic table of the elements and see a heavy element called "Siamesium" (or something :p) newly discovered.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
It can be fun to play minor powers without having to conquer half a continent as them. You need to remember this game isn't about war and there are other things for you to do.

Yeah, honestly, it boggles my mind. I know in other games, there isn't that much to do outside of conquest. The Crusader Kings games are a bit of an exception, as there you can roleplay as your character and dynasty and manage internal affairs to some extend. But even Crusader Kings is a conquest game for most people. So it is no surprise that the Paradox fanbase only measure of playability is the ability to conquer.

But surely everyone agrees this is a bad thing?
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I share your sentiment. Wilcoxchar argument is extremely weak since only a handful of countries were "lucky" enough to be important geopolitical players.
Even a country like Spain, which on paper is much stronger than most "minors" was completely out of the game by the end of the 19th century.

Countries should have different and plausible goals. I can not see why players should be "allowed" to embark on world conquest with San Marino. If you want you can mod the game as someone else said he will when talking about Finland.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of game design, especially when it comes to Paradox games. Countries do not have "goals" because the game is designed so there are no win conditions so there is no set path for the player to go down with any particular country. What countries do have is strengths or advantages that, if the player so desires and I'm emphasizing that because it is the key here, may guide the strategy for that country at least in the early game. However, if the player wants to attempt to take a country in a different direction playing against their strengths and advantages, or if through their play they have created a situation where the country has different strength and advantages than it started with, then the player should not be artificially restricted in how they play that country just because it does not align with our individual historical timeline.

It's also very telling that people immediately have to bring up things like orcs and fictional fantasy elements as alleged examples just to make their point, or bring up irrelevant examples like San Marino which is not even in the game, as it just shows how weak their argument is that to try and make their point they have to make up ridiculous scenarios that don't exist just to have anything to point to to support it.

It's silly any way you cut it to say that Switzerland should be able to grow and become a great power through multiple avenues, because for example the colonization and imperialism mechanisms should be closed off to a country in Switzerland's situation, regardless of player skill. You don't get many people complaining in HOI that Switzerland effectively can't become a naval superpower to rival the USN or RN, so I'm not sure why that should be a problem here.

The reason is exactly what you mentioned, that every nation, including minor ones, are playable, so you can definitely achieve the full game experience, just not by only ever playing Switzerland.

Instead of making the mechanics gamey or bland enough for Switzerland to have access to and be able to enjoy great success in every single core game mechanism, the solution should be that the player can pick another country better positioned to use a coherent colonization mechanic, if they want to play with that, and the game designers should be able to figure out a way to make playing Switzerland fun on its own merits.

If historical Switzerland has literally nothing fun going for it, that's a much bigger game design problem than Switzerland not being able to colonize Africa or reform the Holy Roman Empire.

One would think especially given the stated design goals around internal governance and diplomacy, Switzerland in this period (a literal model of good government to Europe for it's cantonal system, a leading figure in international organizations like the Red Cross, etc) should be the poster child for having fun without a navy or taking over Sardinia-Piedmont.
See my above point. What you're talking about is not an artificial restriction or goals of any particular country, what you're talking about is the strength and advantage or disadvantages of a country's position and the beginning of the game. Yes, Switzerland as it starts out in the game has an advantage in turtling and playing the economic and diplomatic game, and a disadvantage in naval power projection due to its geography (obviously). However, those advantages and disadvantages might shift over the course of some games depending on actions by the player or by the AI, and the game needs to be flexible and nonrestrictive enough in its mechanics and the availability of those mechanics to every nation in order to account for that change in advantage. If Switzerland, whether player or AI led, ends up with part of the Mediterranean coast, it certainly should not be locked from building a navy and attempt to compete with the great powers on the naval stage, or be arbitrarily blocked from joining the colonization game just because it happened to be landlocked in 1836 before it gained a substantial coastline. That kind of overly linear and rigid game design that fails to account for the changes that occur over the course of the game is just extremely bad design for any strategy game, let alone a Paradox game.

It can be fun to play minor powers without having to conquer half a continent as them. You need to remember this game isn't about war and there are other things for you to do.
Yeah, that argument is not going to fly here. Again, I agree with you that it can be fun to play minor powers without empire building. I'm adamantly against turning Victoria into a wargame, but that's not what this is about at all. This is about enabling minor countries to actually have a variety of ways to play the game and be able to fully participate in the game mechanics instead of just railroading them into a single path of turtling. If you're trying to arbitrarily restrict a country to be unable to expand or colonize even if the circumstances of a particular game are aligned for them to (such as getting the diplomatic backing from great powers to do so, or having grown powerful enough economically to compete with the great powers in the colonization game), then that's not arguing for expanding what minor powers can do as you think you're doing. What you're ending up actually arguing for is arbitrarily limiting what minor powers can do, and that's just not fun or good game design for the type of strategy game that Paradox games are intentionally designed to be.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of game design, especially when it comes to Paradox games. Countries do not have "goals" because the game is designed so there are no win conditions so there is no set path for the player to go down with any particular country. What countries do have is strengths or advantages that, if the player so desires and I'm emphasizing that because it is the key here, may guide the strategy for that country at least in the early game. However, if the player wants to attempt to take a country in a different direction playing against their strengths and advantages, or if through their play they have created a situation where the country has different strength and advantages than it started with, then the player should not be artificially restricted in how they play that country just because it does not align with our individual historical timeline.

It's also very telling that people immediately have to bring up things like orcs and fictional fantasy elements as alleged examples just to make their point, or bring up irrelevant examples like San Marino which is not even in the game, as it just shows how weak their argument is that to try and make their point they have to make up ridiculous scenarios that don't exist just to have anything to point to to support it.

Switzerland or Zulu being unable to do world conquest is in no way 'artificial'.

The reason why fantasy examples like Orks, or Elves are brought up is that they fundamentally reveal the weakness of 'it's just a game bro'. No, this is extremely disingenuous, the world map is clearly based on real history and the real world, as are many of the game mechanics. The Ottoman Empire exists at the start of the game because such a nation existed in real life, nations fight wars with each other because wars were fought in real life.

Therefore, it is in fact legitimate to argue that because Swiss world conquest by 1850 would under no circumstances happen in real life, it is ridiculous to see it happening in the game. Moreso, it is ridiculous to argue that just because the player might want to achieve world conquest by 1850, or by 1936, such a feat should be feasible and it not being feasible is 'artificial' it is no less artificial than the player's factories not being able to produce infinite products with zero natural resources, this is not artificial, this is just the game mechanics limiting what you are able to do.

This is of course not to say that just because something was impossible in real life, it should be impossible in-game. Such a thing is often very hard to determine anyway. But honestly, I am tired of people saying 'It's just a game' as if it actually means anything, there's an obvious, tangible connection between game and reality and people who use this argument arbitrarily choose when and when not to acknowledge it. If the Ottoman Empire was removed from the game and replaced by the kingdom of Xikslsajh, the Sublime state of Blii-pi-ksidi and the fdifggfzufrh caliphate, players would rightfully find this strange, if the Ottoman Empire stayed in the game, but was given the resources to singlehandedly conquer Europe within a couple of years, players would find this strange, now just apply the same idea to Switzerland and you are halfway there.

Lastly. Stop being such a pedant, no, San Marino is not in the game, but a San Marino world conquest is no less ridiculous than Zulu world conquest, so it is a valid example.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
People aren't trying to artificially restrict goals but historically restrict means.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Switzerland or Zulu being unable to do world conquest is in no way 'artificial'.

Therefore, it is in fact legitimate to argue that because Swiss world conquest by 1850 would under no circumstances happen in real life, it is ridiculous to see it happening in the game. Moreso, it is ridiculous to argue that just because the player might want to achieve world conquest by 1850, or by 1936, such a feat should be feasible and it not being feasible is 'artificial' it is no less artificial than the player's factories not being able to produce infinite products with zero natural resources, this is not artificial, this is just the game mechanics limiting what you are able to do.
Ok. Nobody is arguing Switzerland should be able to easily do a world conquest by 1850. Stop making up strawman arguments just because you have no arguments against what people are actually saying.
This is of course not to say that just because something was impossible in real life, it should be impossible in-game. Such a thing is often very hard to determine anyway. But honestly, I am tired of people saying 'It's just a game' as if it actually means anything, there's an obvious, tangible connection between game and reality and people who use this argument arbitrarily choose when and when not to acknowledge it. If the Ottoman Empire was removed from the game and replaced by the kingdom of Xikslsajh, the Sublime state of Blii-pi-ksidi and the fdifggfzufrh caliphate, players would rightfully find this strange, if the Ottoman Empire stayed in the game, but was given the resources to singlehandedly conquer Europe within a couple of years, players would find this strange, now just apply the same idea to Switzerland and you are halfway there.
Again, you would do well to stop making up strawmen to argue against and instead actually argue with what people are saying. People are pointing out it's a game because you and others are failing to look at it as a game or consider that because it is a game, the design decisions need to take into account that the game needs to actually be fun for players and give them a variety of options to take each country instead of railroading them into one linear path. Especially when the path you're trying to force players into is, to many players, sit there and do nothing for a hundred years.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Ok. Nobody is arguing Switzerland should be able to easily do a world conquest by 1850. Stop making up strawman arguments just because you have no arguments against what people are actually saying.

Again, you would do well to stop making up strawmen to argue against and instead actually argue with what people are saying. People are pointing out it's a game because you and others are failing to look at it as a game or consider that because it is a game, the design decisions need to take into account that the game needs to actually be fun for players and give them a variety of options to take each country instead of railroading them into one linear path. Especially when the path you're trying to force players into is, to many players, sit there and do nothing for a hundred years.

I believe that by contrast, this is the point that you are missing. Nobody is saying that tag Switzerland should never be able to build a navy under any circumstances. What I am saying is that if the only option to enjoy the game as Switzerland is to conquer territory, it'll just be a map painter like every other Paradox game, just with extra chrome.

Instead of one linear path (ie, expand), I would like to read about mechanics that allow you to 'sit there' as Switzerland (or any other minor nation) and do something that is fun for a hundred years, even though your starting territory and end game territory remain the same. Can you think of any based on the DD's we've seen?
 
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I believe that by contrast, this is the point that you are missing. Nobody is saying that tag Switzerland should never be able to build a navy under any circumstances. What I am saying is that if the only option to enjoy the game as Switzerland is to conquer territory, it'll just be a map painter like every other Paradox game, just with extra chrome.

Instead of one linear path (ie, expand), I would like to read about mechanics that allow you to 'sit there' as Switzerland (or any other minor nation) and do something that is fun for a hundred years, even though your starting territory and end game territory remain the same. Can you think of any based on the DD's we've seen?
Except that, for example, you yourself literally said Switzerland should be barred from colonization and imperialism no matter what, as you say, "regardless of player skill", so yes you are arguing for railroading players based purely on the tag they select:
for example the colonization and imperialism mechanisms should be closed off to a country in Switzerland's situation, regardless of player skill.

And then your "solution" to players wanting to play a colonization game as Switzerland was to... tell them they can't do that and play another country:
the solution should be that the player can pick another country better positioned to use a coherent colonization mechanic, if they want to play with that

So yes, both you and others here have been the ones arguing for railroading countries down certain paths and barring certain mechanics from them purely based on what tag they are. And the only motivation for doing so seems to be that these are minor countries that I guess have the unfortunate circumstance of not historically being Belgium.

Look, I want there to be options for fun gameplay other than war just as much as anyone else. But I also understand that the option to engage in war and conquest should also be there and that including it to the extent that Paradox is does not in any way take away from the other options. In fact, Paradox are going out of their way to ensure it does not take away from the other options with the changes to the warfare system they have made. And yes Victoria is a game about economics and politics, but being a game set in the 19th century it also is a game about imperialism and colonization, and so players will expect to be able to engage in those pursuits and the related mechanics. Especially when, for mechanics like naval power projection and the convoy system, they specifically tie into both the imperialistic and economic aspects of the game. And even the conquest and colonization mechanic tie back into the economic and industrialization aspects of the game, since you are securing countries into your national market or colonizing to ensure your small country has access to vital resources it needs to industrialize. So you and others keep talking about how players should be able to engage in the non-war and the economic mechanics of the game as smaller powers while specifically seeking to deny those smaller countries the ability to engage in a significant part of the economic mechanics of the game for basically no reason other than you've arbitrarily decided certain tags don't deserve it. And that, again, is just bad game design, plain and simple.

As for reading about the mechanics for countries not engaging in warfare, we've gotten plenty of that already such as the dev diaries on POPs; capacities; buildings and production methods; interest groups, laws, and institutions; national markets, infrastructure, the treasury, and standards of living; political movements, slavery, and migration; and all the developer diaries about relations and diplomatic plays. And will get much more I'm sure in the more detailed dev diaries to come since those, like the current warfare series of diaries, are broader overviews. What I'm not sure about is why you're expecting information about not engaging in warfare to be showing up in a developer diary specifically about the consequences of warfare.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
(i)No self-selected circumstances, both nature and nurture is external
(ii)Men make their own history
( Ignoring the lack of well-defined terms )
(i) AND (ii) ->◇Men decide themselves what happens to them

There possibly exist some men that decide what happens to them, based on discrete choices outside their control

Which to me reads as world-state influence is marginal at best. I agree.
 
1. Can ships be mothballed? Can ships be bought from foreign countries?
2. Unrelated, but does getting richer increase a Pop's growth rate, or does it decrease like we see in today's world?

As far as I know, ships cannot be mothballed.
Ships are a trade good as any other, consumed by military port facilities to produce the fleets.
Richer pops grow faster.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ok. Nobody is arguing Switzerland should be able to easily do a world conquest by 1850. Stop making up strawman arguments just because you have no arguments against what people are actually saying.

Again, you would do well to stop making up strawmen to argue against and instead actually argue with what people are saying. People are pointing out it's a game because you and others are failing to look at it as a game or consider that because it is a game, the design decisions need to take into account that the game needs to actually be fun for players and give them a variety of options to take each country instead of railroading them into one linear path. Especially when the path you're trying to force players into is, to many players, sit there and do nothing for a hundred years.

But why? Why shouldn't it be able to do world conquest by 1850? Why is 1850 so much less reasonable than 1936, when by the argument you use over and over again all of this is the unreasonable and real-world has no bearing on what we should or should not expect in the game? Perhaps I am strawmaning you once more, perhaps Switzerland shouldn't be able to do world conquest by 1936, but merely create a very large empire, colonial or in Europe. Mind you, this is already a massive departure from every other Paradox game, where you can conquer the whole map with any nation in the game (If anyone knows a counterexample I would be genuinely interested in hearing it). And this also doesn't explain why world conquest shouldn't be possible when we have already admitted that realism has no bearing.

You once again return to the argument of scale, world conquest by 1850 is ridiculous, a strawman, nobody is actually arguing for it, world conquest by 1936 may or may not be a ridiculous strawman, maybe the conquest of Europe by 1850? By 1936?

I am going over this because I'm so tired of the 'It's a game argument'. Everyone who has ever used that argument has only used it in an arbitrary way because real life is the only measure we have. Some people argue that divergence from realism in certain areas could make for better gameplay, indubitably it could, but that is different from arguing that the real world has no influence whatsoever, as these same people would no doubt reach for 'realism' argument if Germany was replaced by an Orkic horde. There are many arguments you could use 'It is more fun for Switzerland to be able to conquer stuff if the player desires' or 'Aggressive Switzerland would make for a more interesting game for neighbouring nations like Sardinia-Piedmont'. Now, I don't like either of these arguments, but they are infinitely better than 'It's just a game bro, therefore this one unrealistic thing I really want to happen should be able to happen, but everything else should be kept exactly as in history, bro.'

As for the rest of your comment. Do I really need to repeat myself? No one, and this time it is indeed no one, is arguing that Switzerland should be railroaded into only one option and not have a variety of options, the argument is that Switzerland shouldn't be able to achieve literally anything, this is not railroading. In other Paradox games, players can achieve almost literally anything, if you play as the Mamluks in EU4, you can migrate to Japan and convert to Shintoism, but even these games are limited by game mechanics, you can't for example make an infinite amount of money a day (for two reasons, your treasury only updates monthly and not daily and you can't make infinite money) or conquer the Moon (the Moon isn't in the game) as the Mamluks. The same principle should apply in Victoria, you can't create armies without soldier pops (basic game mechanic), you can't produce aeroplanes without an aeroplane factory (game mechanic) and you can't create a world-spanning empire with the Zulu (many game mechanics coming together). In what way is any of this railoading?
 
  • 2
Reactions: