I think a high defensive bonus for units with machineguns , multiplied by dug-in bonuses or fortifications, could work well to represent later warfare, particularly if Tanks are unaffected by that bonus.
Proposal(s) for Victoria 3
- Thread starter Pellaken
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I WANT EVERYTHING from Victoria 2 exept graphic. Add the same mechanics from Victoria 2 and new textures. Then you will gain my reliance.
Regards.
Regards.
Actually the graphics need to stay similar. They are timeless. And CK2 had better graphics than CK3 (and I will stand by that even if I am to be murdered for it).
- 4
- 1
Intended as a joke and I apologize to anyone that gets upset: "The time has come, sir. Would you like a blindfold or not?"
I'm really going to have to disagree with you. Victoria II and CK2's graphics are not timeless, they very much suffer from the tech limitations of the early 2010's when it comes to grand strategy games. They do their best for the time but have to take shortcuts where needed, such as with the sudden jump from the zoomed out map's style to the gameplay style when you zoom in enough to reveal the 3D models and landscapes.
The Aesthetic should stay, as it was giving a good vibe with the victorian styling, and I absolutely love the drawn map style that the zoomed out view had (which given that CK3 has a similar concept, with medieval styling, suggests that the teams at Paradox has a similar view). I do want higher res and better quality models, defined textured boarders and coastlines, all of which certainly can be (and has been in other games) achieved in Paradox's current engines.
- 5
Rallying Points for mobilization
Let the player pick rallying points where mobilized POPs are created if transportation there is possible. To both ease war planning and also make it more sensible.
And like I said previously with railroad movement, let troop movement and the speed with which troops spring up be decided in a way where the rail road's capacity is taken into account.
Not to mention let us decide how much of our population we want to mobilize when we mobilize.
Let the player pick rallying points where mobilized POPs are created if transportation there is possible. To both ease war planning and also make it more sensible.
And like I said previously with railroad movement, let troop movement and the speed with which troops spring up be decided in a way where the rail road's capacity is taken into account.
Not to mention let us decide how much of our population we want to mobilize when we mobilize.
There are already rally points. You can select a province and check a checkbox in the lower left screen. You can even decide whether the new units should merge with an existing army or not. This feature is available for land armies and navies.
- 1
- 1
Thank you, I had missed this feature and it makes my life easier.
- 2
I've already touched on this in another post here, but I've been playing a new campaign and it honestly baffles me how disconnected elections, the upper house, and ideologies are.
In a campaign I played earlier, the ideologies were 18% reactionary, 20% liberal, 40% conservative, and the rest mostly socialist with few anarcho-liberals and communists. The voting intentions were 58% reactionary, 22% liberal, 19% conservative, socialists and communists got no votes. The upper house was pretty much the same as the ideologies.
I am sure that the "first past the post "and "2 per state" laws of the country led to the 3-party system being operated and I probably helped to solidify that result by enforcing party loyalty in some of my states, that pretty much shows that voting works just fine in this game, but why is the upper house so inaccurate regardless of laws? this effectively ensures political gridlock and it doesn't even make sense, mathematically or mechanically. I could see it being done in the name of balancing the ideologies and not allowing really gamey tactics but it still doesn't satisfy me as an answer. Anyone who has an answer to this, I would appreciate if you could inform me of it.
So if I had to recommend something for Victoria 3 , the upper house should be at least somewhat similar to the vote. Not necessarily the exact same, but close. If the reactionaries get 50 percent of the vote, they should have between 40 - 60 % of the seats. The more representative the laws are, the closer to the actual percentages the seats should be.
Now as for the disconnect between ideologies and voting intentions, that makes much more sense. It is quite possible that in times of crisis and polarization ideological conservatives would vote for reactionaries or socialists for communists, liberals for anarcho-liberals etc. It is still too staggering a difference in many cases I feel, so it should be a bit more limited or have more factors influencing than the ones that exist at the moment.
In a campaign I played earlier, the ideologies were 18% reactionary, 20% liberal, 40% conservative, and the rest mostly socialist with few anarcho-liberals and communists. The voting intentions were 58% reactionary, 22% liberal, 19% conservative, socialists and communists got no votes. The upper house was pretty much the same as the ideologies.
I am sure that the "first past the post "and "2 per state" laws of the country led to the 3-party system being operated and I probably helped to solidify that result by enforcing party loyalty in some of my states, that pretty much shows that voting works just fine in this game, but why is the upper house so inaccurate regardless of laws? this effectively ensures political gridlock and it doesn't even make sense, mathematically or mechanically. I could see it being done in the name of balancing the ideologies and not allowing really gamey tactics but it still doesn't satisfy me as an answer. Anyone who has an answer to this, I would appreciate if you could inform me of it.
So if I had to recommend something for Victoria 3 , the upper house should be at least somewhat similar to the vote. Not necessarily the exact same, but close. If the reactionaries get 50 percent of the vote, they should have between 40 - 60 % of the seats. The more representative the laws are, the closer to the actual percentages the seats should be.
Now as for the disconnect between ideologies and voting intentions, that makes much more sense. It is quite possible that in times of crisis and polarization ideological conservatives would vote for reactionaries or socialists for communists, liberals for anarcho-liberals etc. It is still too staggering a difference in many cases I feel, so it should be a bit more limited or have more factors influencing than the ones that exist at the moment.
I'd ague that it would probably be better if it showed why this was happening rather than just setting it up as voter share = share of upper house. One possible idea would be actually assigning seats to core states and showing where the additional seats for an ideology come from. It would probably have to be something that is assigned to the population of each state (to stop players piling in seat in states with the majority ideology they want) and affected by the voting system. This would make stuff like 2 per state obsolete but could open the door for further political reform mechanics, especially if the option to include a lower house to vote for was introduced.
- 1
Another mechanic on internal management of a nation would be a policing system. Places like the UK already had a policing system in some cities (mainly London) before this era, so possibly working to manage it could be fun. It could also help manage rebels, replacing the suppression points system which has always been annoying to me.
- 2
- 1
Supresión points can be easy changed to a system similar to the Influence system.
You will decide the preference of the suppression, and how to suppress each issue, you can use secret police against the voting rights movement, and press censorship against the workers rights movement
You will decide the preference of the suppression, and how to suppress each issue, you can use secret police against the voting rights movement, and press censorship against the workers rights movement
- 2
I really like the idea of having seats and, based on the law in place, those seats to change in number .
For example in a "two per state" system there are 2 seats in each state and depending on the electoral laws these seats are distributed:
- in a two per state/first past the post system it would lead to both seats being gained by the party that won a plurality of votes.
- in a two per state/proportional system the seats would be split 50/50 between the 2 largest parties, as long as the first party did not secure 66% of the vote and the the second party secured 33% at least.
In a "based on population" system, there would be some mathematical equation which would divide population of state by a number to gain each seat, or it would be a set value like "every 100,000 people/10 POPs etc will be 1 seat for the state". These seats will be recalculated every 1-2 years.
Last edited:
- 2
I've gotten strange results where the voters were about 50% conservative, 40% liberal, and 10% divided between the socialist and reactionary extremes, yet the upper house was 80% liberal and the conservatives were under 10%, smaller than either of the extremes. That makes zero sense.
I take it that the developers view liberalism as the ideal, but historically most of the aristocratic leadership was very conservative. The idea should be for liberalism to push its way up the chain from the working classes, with varying degrees of support at the top (as being preferable to a revolution), not to have it mandated from the top as it now functions.
- 1
If you are talking about the election results, then this has to do with available parties, the options you choose during the election events and the party loyalty of each state. I'd say it makes sense.
otherwise, I don't know how it is even possible to get an upper house with such high seats for one party unless it involves events that add extra support for a short while. For me the parliament always reflects pretty closely the ideology chart.
EDIT: I just got an idea, could it be that you had first past the post as the election law and the liberals won most states even if they didn't get the most votes?
Thats a good idea but I feel that the two per state system would be too easy to exploit if the same mechanics for party popularity were used as in Victoria 2, as you would just be able to keep a majority by keeping at least 50% in each state by cycling round national focuses. If party popularity was more tied to other factors (such as different voter groups situations or events), then it could work.
well yes, it would not be as simple as encouraging party loyalty, random and semi-random events would affect it, as well as the fulfilled needs of the POPs, militancy, consciousness etc.
- 1
