Yes this is an economic game but that shouldn’t mean characters should just be completely reduced to a portrait and nothing else.

[Duditsfireguy]

I’ve been worried about this for a while now but if characters are going to be added please give them personality or flavor when a monarch or even in a republic.

I’d rather not have a sengoku situation when they are nothing but static portraits with names on them because there’s plenty of things that characters can do to bring life to this game such as coups or assassinations like with Lincoln listing a few examples.

The one thing I fear most is that Monarchies will be a reskinned government of republics with the title just replaced to king or emperor in events.

If I’m playing Queen Victoria it should be entirely possible to recreate the family feud dynasty dynamic in WW1[yes I’m aware there’s other reasons behind the war but wilhelm has been quoted as saying Queen Victoria could’ve prevented the war if she was alive clearly showing family sometimes had more sway than their country when it came to monarchs. Her entire reason in marrying her children into so many royal houses was to stop full on war in Europe.]

Also if I’m the emperor of Brazil I should have a claim on Portugal though not Brazil itself if the monarchy is deposed. What would be interesting though I’m not expecting it to be a thing is if the game could emulate the separate lands or claims of the monarch and the country itself say Belgium/Brazil situations.


Thirdly characters like Otto von Bismarck and Karl Marx should be visible even if dynamically spawned they should play a major role in shaking up the map as well as the politics of Europe what made the Victorian era the Victorian era is the people not just the art or industries. I implore the developers to create a sequel not be afraid of that and stick to remaking an hd clone of Victoria 2.

 

[The Goldfinch]

On one of recently published screens, it's clearly visible they already have some sort of character traits implemented. Iirc russian tsar was "arrogant" and "cruel".

Btw, consider using more of these: < - , : ; > they really are best friends of every long sentence.

 

[Duditsfireguy]

On one of recently published screens, it's clearly visible they already have some sort of character traits implemented. Iirc russian tsar was "arrogant" and "cruel".

Btw, consider using more of these: < - , : ; > they really are best friends of every long sentence.

I’m typing on mobile at the moment so apologizes.

 

[ImperatorLJ]

While Great Man Theory is garbage, you are right that individuals who held great power and influence should be represented by more than just a name. It's impossible to imagine the 19th century as being the same without Marx or Bismarck.

 

[JBolt]

I’ve been worried about this for a while now but if characters are going to be added please give them personality or flavor when a monarch or even in a republic.

I’d rather not have a sengoku situation when they are nothing but static portraits with names on them because there’s plenty of things that characters can do to bring life to this game such as coups or assassinations like with Lincoln listing a few examples.

The one thing I fear most is that Monarchies will be a reskinned government of republics with the title just replaced to king or emperor in events.

If I’m playing Queen Victoria it should be entirely possible to recreate the family feud dynasty dynamic in WW1[yes I’m aware there’s other reasons behind the war but wilhelm has been quoted as saying Queen Victoria could’ve prevented the war if she was alive clearly showing family sometimes had more sway than their country when it came to monarchs. Her entire reason in marrying her children into so many royal houses was to stop full on war in Europe.]

Also if I’m the emperor of Brazil I should have a claim on Portugal though not Brazil itself if the monarchy is deposed. What would be interesting though I’m not expecting it to be a thing is if the game could emulate the separate lands or claims of the monarch and the country itself say Belgium/Brazil situations.


Thirdly characters like Otto von Bismarck and Karl Marx should be visible even if dynamically spawned they should play a major role in shaking up the map as well as the politics of Europe what made the Victorian era the Victorian era is the people not just the art or industries. I implore the developers to create a sequel not be afraid of that and stick to remaking an hd clone of Victoria 2.

If you're coming from CK, I can understand why you'd want this. However, for this era, I would rather the character stuff be kept to a minimum. We're dealing here with huge populations of millions of people and vast bureaucratic governments with many working cogs. And plus, this is a Vic game, and I much prefer the character stuff in CK where it can actually be explored within a better fitting medium. So maybe a trait or two for monarchs or prime ministers, and that's all.

 

[Miroku20X6]

I agree with OP. History is driven by Economic/Political forces, but also by individuals.

Imagine a world where Frederick III doesn’t have cancer and liberalizes Prussia for 20 years instead of ruling less than 1 year and giving way to Kaiser Wilhelm. Or perhaps a healthy Frederick gets assasinated to prevent such liberalization. Or perhaps there’s a military coup to oust him and install Frederick.

I think it’s plain to see how the role of individuals can augment the various “forces” at play in Victoria III.

 

[scriptkiddy]

Gee… let’s not make another I:R out of Vic3 by messing it up with some weird character/dynasty management stuff. Victoria is not Crusader Kings. I seriously couldn’t care less whom Queen Victoria or Tsarina Katharina would have to shag next to prevent my economic simulation campaign being over because the dynasty lacks another sickly toddler as heir.

 

[Xdevo]

I agree with OP. History is driven by Economic/Political forces, but also by individuals.

Imagine a world where Frederick III doesn’t have cancer and liberalizes Prussia for 20 years instead of ruling less than 1 year and giving way to Kaiser Wilhelm. Or perhaps a healthy Frederick gets assasinated to prevent such liberalization. Or perhaps there’s a military coup to oust him and install Frederick.

I think it’s plain to see how the role of individuals can augment the various “forces” at play in Victoria III.

That would be the role of the player.
Unless we're going to make a game where the player's hands are severely tied by things outside their control for monarchies, I don't see how much more character interactions the game could add that aren't just events (which were already in Vic2). The Victoria example is functionally just improving relations with other nations. Its not remotely as if the marriages had stopped the Crimean War or Franco-Prussian War, and it was abundantly clear by the turn of the century that there was going to be another major war, probably started by something in the Balkans, regardless of Victoria's machinations.
Maybe, some level of traits (having Victoria as queen gives you +20% Improved relationship or whatever) would make sense, but that's pretty much the system that we can already see. Anything more is way out of scope and makes little sense a both the scale of the game, but also with the way the player is supposed to interact with the game.

 

[LoyalistRedcoat]

Characters, here meaning leaders and influencers, were a super important part of this era, where the decisions, actions, death, fortune and misfortune of individuals had enormous consequences for certain nations, and sometimes the entire world. I'm happy to see that they've included some element of character traits for both national leaders and interest group leaders this time, but hopefully there will be more to it than that.

 

[Kanaric]

vic 2 had no characters and it was fine.

What this game is doing is great they just need to make sure they get shit right like regnal names.

 

[Zarket]

Gee… let’s not make another I:R out of Vic3 by messing it up with some weird character/dynasty management stuff. Victoria is not Crusader Kings. I seriously couldn’t care less whom Queen Victoria or Tsarina Katharina would have to shag next to prevent my economic simulation campaign being over because the dynasty lacks another sickly toddler as heir.

Why should the economic simulation being over because the dynasty not have an heir?

Yes, it's Victoria, not Crusader Kings. The thread it's just about add depth and importance to the characters (like, you know, they had in the victorian era), not about the game should end if the project of a important character fails.

A realistic game about the XIX century should be able of modeling the huge impact of Napoleon III, Bismarck, Victoria or Marx. Or Wilhelm III: after all, that man had a really great responsability in the beggining of the Great War. You play as the country, so if they fail you not should get an game over, yes. Everyone agree with that. But their impact should being in the game.

The History is not about Great Men. The History is not about persons being dragged by the social stream. The History is about both. Victoria III must represent that.

 

[Traum77]

I generally disagree, but I think it would be worthwhile to make those personality traits they've already posted about for leaders have a larger impact on the country, based on the level of power centralization So having a character like Teddy Roosevelt has a small but interesting impact on a republic like the USA, but the same character in charge of an absolutist Russia would have much larger modifiers attached. Would perhaps impact the feel of a game enough to make it noticeable but without distracting from the fact that Vicky is about large scale POPs above all else.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I'll just repeat and expand on what I said when you brought this up in the other thread.

The Victoria series is the single Paradox game with the greatest focus on the actions of the masses and that attempts to avoid the great man theory of history that permeates so many strategy games. Adding a full blown marriage and dynasty management mechanic, especially when it is something that is already a core mechanic of another Paradox game, would be both bad theming and bad design. Victoria's core focus from a game design principle is on the economic and societal/population management and their interactions, not on the actions of individuals or specific people or characters. Having a basic character with traits such as the world leader, interest group leader, and POP portraits that is representative of said group is fine and is even a good way to help the player better visualize the group as a whole. However, it is not and should not be a main focus of the game because that's simply not what Victoria the game is about.

I've been seeing this kind of thing a lot in here lately. People will make suggestions that ultimately amount to ripping the core design of another Paradox game and trying to shoehorn it full force into Victoria. Some people really don't seem to understand that each of Paradox's games has a very different focus, whether it be the dynasty and RPG focus of Crusader Kings, the economic and societal management focus of Victoria, or the military management focus of Hearts of Iron. There's a reason they're separate - because they're each the core focus of their own games - and trying to add one game's focus in another game to nearly the same depth is a really bad idea in terms of design and good gameplay. Trying to put the military organization of HOI f.e. into Victoria would just create so much feature bloat and complexity in the game that it would be completely inscrutable to a large majority of players, not to mention the impact on performance. It's like the people who constantly keep saying Total War battles should be put into Paradox games when the reason Total War battles are as deep as they are is because that's the only thing with any depth in Total War games, because that's just how game design works.

Victoria is not Crusader Kings or Hearts of Iron and should not try to be either of those games. It is it's own game and people really need to realize that.

 

[maxk94]

Characters in Victoria should be bound to pops as their representative! They should not develop a life of their own like in CK and Imperator, but being an incarnate "resource" of binding to pop groups. As German Emperor you might want a Junker Bismarck in your cabinet to calm down East Elbian Aristocrats - or a Socialdemocrat if a revolution threatens.

Characters should be there as a function, like in Stellaris but more political.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I agree with OP. History is driven by Economic/Political forces, but also by individuals.

Imagine a world where Frederick III doesn’t have cancer and liberalizes Prussia for 20 years instead of ruling less than 1 year and giving way to Kaiser Wilhelm. Or perhaps a healthy Frederick gets assasinated to prevent such liberalization. Or perhaps there’s a military coup to oust him and install Frederick.

I think it’s plain to see how the role of individuals can augment the various “forces” at play in Victoria III.

So what you're really asking is imagine a world where the liberals or a liberal Petite-Bourgoisie-controlled Prussian government for 20 years instead of just 1 year before giving back control to a conservative Junker-led government. Or if that happens by a different pop up event. Or if instead of being taken control by a Junker-led conservative government it's an Armed Forces-led conservative government.

None of what you're suggesting requires characters to be in the game beyond names and portraits for interest groups.

 

[MTGian]

I am not entirely sure that I understand what the OP wants, but here are some thoughts that seem at least tangentially related:

The problem with great men/women is how you handle their absence. For a great person to be special, you have to have something special that only they can do. By definition, that means that if you do not have that great person, then you cannot do that thing. Also, the more special you make great people, the more you have to lock out options when you don't have a great person around/in charge.

That is my principal concern. Special options goes hand-in-hand with restrictions.

I am not saying it is a deal breaker, but it makes me nervous.

 

[Palna Thoke]

If you're playing as tsarist Russia how unrealistic would it you could just go completely reformist with Tsar Nikolai as your absolute leader. It would make absolutely no sense from a historical standpoint. There should definitely be some character involvement especially in very authoritarian countries.
However, I agree characters should never be the core focus of the game.

 

[Xdevo]

If you're playing as tsarist Russia how unrealistic would it you could just go completely reformist with Tsar Nikolai as your absolute leader. It would make absolutely no sense from a historical standpoint. There should definitely be some character involvement especially in very authoritarian countries.
However, I agree characters should never be the core focus of the game.

Its no more unrealistic than 80 years of a nearly completely different history resulting in people that have exactly the same personality and aims as they did in the real world.

Ultimately the question of this is who the player is representing within the government for an authoritarian nation. It makes little sense to me if the player is playing as the government leadership that their hands are tied by the government leadership.

 

[Palna Thoke]

Its no more unrealistic than 80 years of a nearly completely different history resulting in people that have exactly the same personality and aims as they did in the real world.

Ultimately the question of this is who the player is representing within the government for an authoritarian nation. It makes little sense to me if the player is playing as the government leadership that their hands are tied by the government leadership.

Well I'm not saying that characters should get the same personality traits as they did historically 80 years after game start. Characters that come later in the game could/should be different, but in 1836 they should be like they were in actual history should they not?

If you can just completely ignore the fact that the leader of a nation was a staunch conservative and just go full liberal without any hindrance, then the game becomes full sandbox and completely breaks the immersion of trying to change your country to the better from a historical position. Because at that point the starting position of the country won't be historical and you might as well be playing a fantasy game where Russia also gets dragons and leviathans to help them fight their battles.
You have to realize that you aren't playing as the "government leadership". If you were playing as the government, how are you then able to support factions that would literally overthrow you? That would be non-sensical. Instead you are playing as the "will/spirit of the nation" trying to guide it in the direction you prefer. Therefore, you have to take into account the autocratic leader of the nation when his main purpose in life was to try and prevent liberal reform.

 

[Xdevo]

Well I'm not saying that characters should get the same personality traits as they did historically 80 years after game start. Characters that come later in the game could/should be different, but in 1836 they should be like they were in actual history should they not?

Given what we actually know about "personality", deterministic views of personality being the same even 1 year into a different history is suspect. This is especially true when leaders at the time with similar personalities came to vastly different conclusions about very similar events.

If you can just completely ignore the fact that the leader of a nation was a staunch conservative and just go full liberal without any hindrance, then the game becomes full sandbox and completely breaks the immersion of trying to change your country to the better from a historical position. Because at that point the starting position of the country won't be historical and you might as well be playing a fantasy game where Russia also gets dragons and leviathans to help them fight their battles.

"Breaks the immersion" is a meaningless standard here. This is a dumb slippery slope argument that deserves nothing more than dismissal and a laugh.

You have to realize that you aren't playing as the "government leadership". If you were playing as the government, how are you then able to support factions that would literally overthrow you? That would be non-sensical. Instead you are playing as the "will/spirit of the nation" trying to guide it in the direction you prefer. Therefore, you have to take into account the autocratic leader of the nation when his main purpose in life was to try and prevent liberal reform.

Then why is the player passing reforms in an autocratic state? Why is the player doing literally any of the actions that a government does in an autocratic state? Why doesn't an autocratic leader do any of a great number of things that they unilaterally did historically without player input?

The reason you can support a faction that overthrows you is because you are the Government of the nation, not a Government. It doesn't matter if its the Russian Monarchy or a Russian Parliament or the Soviet Union; they're still the current Government of the nation you're playing.

You can argue that this all should change, but that's a huge departure from Victoria's history (and every other PDS game except for a brief portion of a CK2 DLC). There are already blocks on quickly and immediately liberalizing a nation (interest groups, popular vote, nobles / upper house depending on the government type or game) including rebels that get mad if you reform too quickly.