My Victoria 3 early game review (>40 hours)

[Sudertum]

My review why i am unable to reach slightly more than 1850 (so early game), beginning with that i like (and enjoy) to dislike (hate):

+++ Managing economy meaning balancing needs through trade and buildings, seen values then production is changed/ improved in such look partly abitrary which doesn't change my urge to keep adjusting my country at all.
++ Technology spread is really fitting idea to keep up minor powers with bigger ones
++ Trade system is surprisingly (for me) usefull, like especially level system here
+ Region borders are mostly fine are far i saw (mostly closer look on central europe)
- Population values, ethnic and religious composition are partly way off (example Poznan having almost twice pops compared to Eastprussia, reality Poznan was slightly behind! Said regions were way less german too.)
- UI isn't intutive, keep looking around
- lack of historical events and leaders also why are they dying like flies now? Bismarck never reaches his thirties!
- Diplomacy looks neat but plays out stupid, AI behavior is completly random, choices useless or too powerfull
-- Enacting new laws is frustrating as hell, beeing completly dependant on luck can ruin a game
--- Complete War mechanic is atrocious, starting a conflict takes forever, allies step back (causing a chain reaction even), close friends choose enemy side for no reason, options to gain a supporter are turd also not forgetting would add war goals but barely useful given. So then war starts in worst possible way, clunky front system is stupid all around, why no controll over my units?! Like the fact though i don't to bother with unit composition anymore but this lack of knowing where my forces are at all raises only my blood pressure. (Random generated battles appearing also crap.) Getting peace is also a pain, then a minor is in revolution (involved due defence alliance) war takes like three seconds but clock running down takes about two ingame months! Why not ending it immeadiately if one side is crushed and no option for other countries to interfere is available?

Done for now, might edit then remember more...
Edit: missing words added/typos fixed

Edit2: - Interest regions /Headquarter system; displayed on map have some odd borders (Westphalia in Rhineland?, Silesia in Poland?)

 

[Bearjuden]

++ Technology spread is really fitting idea to keep up minor powers with bigger ones

It's less fitting than you think, actually. It easily leads to nations getting spread of tech they have no use for, which is exactly how technology does not spread in real life. Technology is practice, justified by cultural values (eg, efficiency) and maintained by use.

But if you have no use for something, then it isn't going to spread. It's actually a pretty core issue foundational to the very idea of a tech tree. A tech tree mandates a certain order of technological growth and in order to get something you might need, you have to pass through things you don't, for the sole reason that this is how it was done irl. This is considered a false assumption by historians, and is a direct cause of this issue.

A better system would simply give you tech based on what your market demands. Are you short of silk and have plantations? You'd get tech progress towards engines (if not unlocked) and advanced irrigation. Low market access? Engines and railways. High unfilled desire for free movement need? Advanced railway PMs.

This would be far, far more historical than random "tech spread" through a fixed tree.

 

[Ethan_Smythe]

It's less fitting than you think, actually. It easily leads to nations getting spread of tech they have no use for, which is exactly how technology does not spread in real life. Technology is practice, justified by cultural values (eg, efficiency) and maintained by use.

But if you have no use for something, then it isn't going to spread. It's actually a pretty core issue foundational to the very idea of a tech tree. A tech tree mandates a certain order of technological growth and in order to get something you might need, you have to pass through things you don't, for the sole reason that this is how it was done irl. This is considered a false assumption by historians, and is a direct cause of this issue.

A better system would simply give you tech based on what your market demands. Are you short of silk and have plantations? You'd get tech progress towards engines (if not unlocked) and advanced irrigation. Low market access? Engines and railways. High unfilled desire for free movement need? Advanced railway PMs.

This would be far, far more historical than random "tech spread" through a fixed tree.

I think one of the challenges of all grand strategy games when it comes to tech is that tech trees tend to be... I guess you could say "prescriptive" instead of "descriptive". That is, despite the many choices that a tech tree offers, it still railroads you towards certain outcomes rather than ideas and technologies developing organically in response to 'what your market demands' as you rightly put it. Possibly the most glaring case in this game has to do with the late-game military techs like flamethrowers, tanks and stormtrooper tactics. All of these developed 'organically' as responses to the horrible stalemate of trench warfare, but in Victoria 3 (unless they specifically make a WWI scenario) World War 1 doesn't seem to happen as it did historically so it seems strangely 'bolted on' to have all this WWI tech happening when there is no actual impetus for any of it.

 

[Bearjuden]

I think one of the challenges of all grand strategy games when it comes to tech is that tech trees tend to be... I guess you could say "prescriptive" instead of "descriptive". That is, despite the many choices that a tech tree offers, it still railroads you towards certain outcomes rather than ideas and technologies developing organically in response to 'what your market demands' as you rightly put it.

This is true, but unlike most GSG, V3 actually has a market that can simulate that. So where I might be more hesitant to fault some games for this, V3 actually captures so much of the actual causes of tech growth (as we know it) that it should be able to do better.

 

[Panagean]

It's less fitting than you think, actually. It easily leads to nations getting spread of tech they have no use for, which is exactly how technology does not spread in real life. Technology is practice, justified by cultural values (eg, efficiency) and maintained by use.

But if you have no use for something, then it isn't going to spread. It's actually a pretty core issue foundational to the very idea of a tech tree. A tech tree mandates a certain order of technological growth and in order to get something you might need, you have to pass through things you don't, for the sole reason that this is how it was done irl. This is considered a false assumption by historians, and is a direct cause of this issue.

A better system would simply give you tech based on what your market demands. Are you short of silk and have plantations? You'd get tech progress towards engines (if not unlocked) and advanced irrigation. Low market access? Engines and railways. High unfilled desire for free movement need? Advanced railway PMs.

This would be far, far more historical than random "tech spread" through a fixed tree.

Very cool idea - also reminds me a little of the (IMO, great) inventions system from V2, with triggered modifiers.

Another reason it is ahistorical, I would argue, is that by spreading tech around the world, it diminishes the enormous technological barriers between western and nonwestern nations, many of which had to undertake specific state-sponsored diplomatic missions to clue up on Western tech. (In reverse, this also happened with Britain's attempts to break the tea, silk and porcelain markets away from China)

 

[Voigt]

For war itself I only wish for small changes (front unifcation, but also with advanced tech a FM can lied multiple battles at once along the front line, if all enemies are occupied 100% end the war immedatly)
Many of your gripes for war seems to actually about AI, how it irrationally supports the enemy and drops you as an ally. And also how sometimes you can convince the AI to help your for practically nothing, and sometimes a really good offer is denied.

 

[Sudertum]

For war itself I only wish for small changes (front unifcation, but also with advanced tech a FM can lied multiple battles at once along the front line, if all enemies are occupied 100% end the war immedatly)
Many of your gripes for war seems to actually about AI, how it irrationally supports the enemy and drops you as an ally. And also how sometimes you can convince the AI to help your for practically nothing, and sometimes a really good offer is denied.

Yeah just click on owing an obligation right now, done.

 

[GrafKeks]

It's less fitting than you think, actually. It easily leads to nations getting spread of tech they have no use for, which is exactly how technology does not spread in real life. Technology is practice, justified by cultural values (eg, efficiency) and maintained by use.

Technology spreads via institutions and people not nations though, unless the government is intervening very specifically. Technology is applied sciences/inventions, that even back then requires a certain amount if theory.

But if you have no use for something, then it isn't going to spread. It's actually a pretty core issue foundational to the very idea of a tech tree. A tech tree mandates a certain order of technological growth and in order to get something you might need, you have to pass through things you don't, for the sole reason that this is how it was done irl. This is considered a false assumption by historians, and is a direct cause of this issue.

It's relatively true for development I.e laser-gun I. v. laser-gun II. in Stellaris, can't have an improved version of something that didn't exist yet, although laser-blaster might be absolutely different or not.

The game isn't long enough for theoretical sciences to be a true fundament for almost every research, hence you could say it's partially a false assumption. Producing railways without steam engines would be weird though.

A better system would simply give you tech based on what your market demands. Are you short of silk and have plantations? You'd get tech progress towards engines (if not unlocked) and advanced irrigation. Low market access? Engines and railways. High unfilled desire for free movement need? Advanced railway PMs.

This would be far, far more historical than random "tech spread" through a fixed tree.

Would it be though? I mean I would love tech-spread rushing to artificial dye and silk via eating some losses, but still.

 

[Bearjuden]

Technology spreads via institutions and people not nations though, unless the government is intervening very specifically. Technology is applied sciences/inventions, that even back then requires a certain amount if theory.

So it's worth clarifying at this point a few things:

• Despite your failure to recognize the difference between the nation and the government, what you're saying actually supports my point anyway. I said tech is practice justified by cultural values and maintained by use; all of those originate with people. People are the one exercising practice, people are the ones with the cultural values, and people are the ones using the tech and so keeping it alive. Even the government itself can be seen as a tech of sorts in this light, justified by a cultural value of centralization which decentralized nations do not share.
• Technology is much broader than merely science and inventions, as an enormous portion of the social and military tech tabs makes clear. It also requires more than simply applying a concept, since as mentioned it requires cultural justification. This is the difference between the pre and post environmental movements. John Muir is the person who invented environmentalism in the United States, by creating justification for a thing that did not require any actual new inventions to do.

It's relatively true for development I.e laser-gun I. v. laser-gun II. in Stellaris, can't have an improved version of something that didn't exist yet, although laser-blaster might be absolutely different or not.

The game isn't long enough for theoretical sciences to be a true fundament for almost every research, hence you could say it's partially a false assumption. Producing railways without steam engines would be weird though.

Victoria III doesn't really have a lot of that though. It has new PMs, but the new PMs are not strictly better versions of old PMs. They output more goods, but also have different employment requirements and input needs.

I'm really interested to hear of what market conditions you think would ever find it easier to develop a locomotive powered by a steam engine than a steam engine in isolation. Unless railways as a tech is just the basic idea of fixed lines of mass movement, but the railway car seems kind of fundamental to it.

Would it be though? I mean I would love tech-spread rushing to artificial dye and silk via eating some losses, but still.

Aniline was discovered before the game even starts and only needed a cheap means of outputting it. People looked for that way because regular dye was far away, expensive, and you could not scale up production as efficiently for real dye as for chemical dye. Then it was found and so people used it.

In other words, there was a need. Yes, it would be historical. What would be ahistorical is a specific tech-rush where you focus only on building need to get techs, but that would in essence be depriving your population of a ton of things in order to create need, so ideally the game would punish you for that quite harshly where it would be better to let a population's passive need for clothes build your rayon research more slowly but speed it up by raising their SoL (so they buy more so you have more need) rather than having a direct need for silk that causes shortages and bankrupts all of your clothes manufacturers. To say nothing of other nations would mess up your plans anyway by just selling you cheap clothes when you have a shortage and so undercut your plan anyway.

 

[Kultakala Siika]

I'm really interested to hear of what market conditions you think would ever find it easier to develop a locomotive powered by a steam engine than a steam engine in isolation. Unless railways as a tech is just the basic idea of fixed lines of mass movement, but the railway car seems kind of fundamental to it.

This gets into complicated arguments about what exactly was the driving force of industrialization, but here is an argument one could make:

Steam engine was invented in British coal mines, where there was (1) abundance of cheap coal to power first crude and inefficient steam engines (2) need to pump out water out of coal mines, so inefficient steam engine was useful. These conditions made it possible to run a bad steam engine and use that to iterate and invent ever-better steam engines.

Now, after the British have iterated and invented an efficient steam engine, many others who didn't have coal mines and thus no need for steam power could then leverage the already-existing invention (steam engine) for other needs (introducing railways for transportation, or replacing water powered textile looms with steam power).

I don't think it is possible do get fully rid of tech tree in Vic3 or any other game (steam engine is always a precondition for steam locomotive and railways), but it is an interesting thought if technology spread could be directed by market conditions. (After someone gets steam engine invented, countries with lot of merchant navy would get technology spread towards steamships and their precursors; manufacturing to steam powered manufacturing techs; etc.)

 

[Bearjuden]

I feel like this is reaching the point of being its own thread, so I apologize to the OP for how this discussion has exploded, but...

Now, after the British have iterated and invented an efficient steam engine, many others who didn't have coal mines and thus no need for steam power could then leverage the already-existing invention (steam engine) for other needs (introducing railways for transportation, or replacing water powered textile looms with steam power).

Okay, you're now overlaying two separate systems here. You said producing. So I am assuming a single market. If you take a market in isolation, you still have to understand how a steam engine works to make anything that runs on a steam engine. The fact that it's not being used for mining does not preclude that someone understands how to make it or how it works. You still have to learn how an engine works and is built, even if you don't use it for a particular purpose. The steam engine is just a means of power; it has no fundamental application. To use game-terms, the fact that in the game right now, one tech binds both engine factories and mining PMs is highly flawed. The ability to build an engine is distinct from the usage of that engine for a particular purpose.

If you start connecting markets, then it's very historical to be able to get techs in a weird order like that. Let's say Egypt needs infrastructure. Someone develops the idea of the railway, and they can power them by importing engines from the UK without learning how the engine itself works. That's historical; lots of people imported things to get around lack of technical know-how at home. And so yes, that is how you develop railways without developing engines. But that's not the case that was being discussed.

 

[GrafKeks]

So it's worth clarifying at this point a few things:

• Despite your failure to recognize the difference between the nation and the government, what you're saying actually supports my point anyway. I said tech is practice justified by cultural values and maintained by use; all of those originate with people. People are the one exercising practice, people are the ones with the cultural values, and people are the ones using the tech and so keeping it alive. Even the government itself can be seen as a tech of sorts in this light, justified by a cultural value of centralization which decentralized nations do not share.

I specifically differentiated between them, as can be seen in the part you quoted, I talk about one then the other.

Do you mean by cultural values the set of all cultural values of each individual human? Then I misread, as with that I'd agree it's about individuals not standard cultural values ( which is a true subset of cultural values )

As below organizational doctrines are invented hence, they are technology albeit extremely basal ones ( by basal I mean low-hanging fruit, not all of the possible ones, depending on how efficient n failsafe etc. they have to be in relation to their goal )

• Technology is much broader than merely science and inventions, as an enormous portion of the social and military tech tabs makes clear. It also requires more than simply applying a concept, since as mentioned it requires cultural justification. This is the difference between the pre and post environmental movements. John Muir is the person who invented environmentalism in the United States, by creating justification for a thing that did not require any actual new inventions to do.

Are those not inventions? Is a doctrine not invented?

This might be a language-barrier problem on my part.

Social-sciences and military-sciences do exist, btw.

Victoria III doesn't really have a lot of that though. It has new PMs, but the new PMs are not strictly better versions of old PMs. They output more goods, but also have different employment requirements and input needs.

Given the way GDP is counted( and that you mint it ) they are almost always better ( if you play to win and aren't one of the mega pop countries ), if you access to resources and qualifications are available.

I'm really interested to hear of what market conditions you think would ever find it easier to develop a locomotive powered by a steam engine than a steam engine in isolation. Unless railways as a tech is just the basic idea of fixed lines of mass movement, but the railway car seems kind of fundamental to it.

That's my point, I think you misread me.

Aniline was discovered before the game even starts and only needed a cheap means of outputting it. People looked for that way because regular dye was far away, expensive, and you could not scale up production as efficiently for real dye as for chemical dye. Then it was found and so people used it.

Like a lot of research that was meant for something totally different/lead to massive market or medical breakthroughs, finding dye application for aniline wasn't planned either and the mass production formula is older than the discovery of aniline purple.

Basal research is mostly independent from market needs, it's done by scientists a lot of them care very little about, until big money does what it does to good people. We're talking about a good example here.

In other words, there was a need. Yes, it would be historical.

Using Aniline to mass-produce dye was an accidental discovery, and certainly not market-directed, since markets aren't closed systems anyway new demand and supply can be introduced anyway so even for a producer that engages in development or is government subsidized to engage in research, new markets can be created; IBM as an example.