My wishlist for Vic 2

[unmerged(30848)]

On thinking about it, I think the system could use another POP. The current game has no civil servants, no bureaucrats to provide health care and policing and to run the government. It would be interesting to have POPs for managing local, state, and national governmental affairs. Militancy, consciousness, crime, life rating, and basic efficiency could be affected by the presence of civil servants.

 

[aprof]

I like some of gamer-42's ideas about private initiatives, and they've prompted me to post some of the things I've been pondering though I'm not sure they are to the finished stage yet.

I'd like to see some representation of the effect of type of government and the monetary policy reflect the source of cash and what can be done with it. Gov-type and policy will determine how much private sector growth vs government growth is possible, and have sliders representing the private sector and government money available. There would be varying levels of how much money comes in to each slider and how much can be spent from each slider: examples railroads can be built by either gov or private sector; the government slider can only build only military-related factories; the government can only build warships; regulars can be built by government, but in some cases private sector can build militia.

Maybe you would then have the AI build factories from private sector cash and depending on gov-type and policies, build/expand railroads. I say maybe because I'm not sure whether a game where you don't have total control of what can be done will be fun. It will be random, and you would need to cultivate relations with your POPs that way. Unhappy POPs would demand lower taxes, and more reforms, and tend to vote to change policies which would reduce what you can do with the money you have access to. (That's another aspect I've not clearly got a handle on yet.)

Having the ability to invest in foreign nations and earn cash from those investments would be a great addition. During the 19th century, the UK invested heavily in the American West, Mexico and other nations around the globe. There would be some benefits to the nation where the factory was built, but a portion of the money earned would be siphoned off for the owning nation.

Could you 'nationalize' the industry and seize foreign assets? I think so, but that would be at the risk of lowered relations and maybe to the point of war.

 

[Yakman]

A steam punk variant.

You can build a factory that will consume machine parts AND POPs. The result would be steam-punk style cyborgs. THAT would rock!

You'd need to keep the POP system to do this, so I'd say POPs gotta stay. They just have to buy things the way they are supposed to.

 

[Yakman]

We had an isolationist policy at the time which is similar to the way China was run 10 years ago or so.

Tell that to Mexico. Or Nicaragua. Or the Dominican Republic. Or Japan. Or Spain... isolationist my butt.

 

[aprof]

Tell that to Mexico. Or Nicaragua. Or the Dominican Republic. Or Japan. Or Spain... isolationist my butt.

From Polk (who sought war with Mexico in 1846) until Wilson (who intervened in Mexico in 1914), the US tended to stay out of European affairs and avoided getting involved in international incidents. We had few designs on foreign lands, and because of that policy the US allowed it's army to be reduced from its Civil War high to just 28,000 men. And the navy shrank from 600 ships in 1866 to 24 in 1881. In that sense, the USA was isolationist.

Opening trade with Japan in the 1850's was a commercial initiative of the US. Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic were interventions in the 1920's (after Wilson) in order to end civil wars in those nations. These interventions were considered to be necessary to keep the European nations of France, Germany or the UK from gaining control of independent Western Hemisphere nations. Roosevelt's stand against Germany over the Venezuela Crisis is another example of the US acting to keep the Western Hemisphere free from any further European control. (It also was the source of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine which added the idea that it was the purvue of the USA to intervene to resolve conflicts in this hemisphere.)

The War with Spain was a special case where the US did actively intervene in a foreign nations' domestic affairs. It was a 'popular' war in that public opinion was driven to see that 'abuses' by Spain in Cuba needed to be addressed by action by the United States.

America's 'intervention' in Colombia to free Panama was perhaps the only true meddling by the USA in a foreign nations internal affairs which was for direct gain of the USA in the time period of Victoria. Of course, the Panama Canal was the direct gain.

America's unpreparedness for World War II was a result of the US's attempt to again withdraw from becoming involved in European affairs folowing World War I. Our intention to not be drawn into European wars meant that we greatly reduced our armed forces (again). After World War II, we resolved that we would not be caught unprepared again.

Even so, the USA was no more interventionist than any other major power in the period.

 

[Aragos]

From Polk (who sought war with Mexico in 1846) until Wilson (who intervened in Mexico in 1914), the US tended to stay out of European affairs and avoided getting involved in international incidents. We had few designs on foreign lands, and because of that policy the US allowed it's army to be reduced from its Civil War high to just 28,000 men. And the navy shrank from 600 ships in 1866 to 24 in 1881. In that sense, the USA was isolationist.

Opening trade with Japan in the 1850's was a commercial initiative of the US. Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic were interventions in the 1920's (after Wilson) in order to end civil wars in those nations. These interventions were considered to be necessary to keep the European nations of France, Germany or the UK from gaining control of independent Western Hemisphere nations. Roosevelt's stand against Germany over the Venezuela Crisis is another example of the US acting to keep the Western Hemisphere free from any further European control. (It also was the source of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine which added the idea that it was the purvue of the USA to intervene to resolve conflicts in this hemisphere.)

The War with Spain was a special case where the US did actively intervene in a foreign nations' domestic affairs. It was a 'popular' war in that public opinion was driven to see that 'abuses' by Spain in Cuba needed to be addressed by action by the United States.

America's 'intervention' in Colombia to free Panama was perhaps the only true meddling by the USA in a foreign nations internal affairs which was for direct gain of the USA in the time period of Victoria. Of course, the Panama Canal was the direct gain.

America's unpreparedness for World War II was a result of the US's attempt to again withdraw from becoming involved in European affairs folowing World War I. Our intention to not be drawn into European wars meant that we greatly reduced our armed forces (again). After World War II, we resolved that we would not be caught unprepared again.

Even so, the USA was no more interventionist than any other major power in the period.

Aprof, as always makes an excellent point. The USA didnt NEED to go to Africa or India to make an empire--it was right next door in the American West.

Perhaps in Vic2, a compromise would be something akin to USA entry in HOI; the USA level of interventionism/imperialism allowed would be based on the actions of other countries. For example, if a blockade is in effect in the North Sea/English Channel/Coast of France, the USA 'allowed actions' increases (to reflect the damage to US trade interests). Or, more importantly, if a GP is in Mexico or Canada (excepting ENG in CAN), the USA is given the option of declaring war against that GP as usual. This would prevent USA colonization and expansion until after the Spanish-American War at least.

My personal feeling is that the player should be given the choice early in the game to determine what the overarching USA policy is. A 'global imperialist' policy would allow colonization as it is now and perhaps boost naval effectiveness, but at a substantial cost in immigration and industrial power (remember that US industry was heavily invested in by UK, FRA and others in the era and did much to boost US steel and other heavy industries). An 'isolationist' option would give the USA certain territorial claims (the Mex border provinces, perhaps the Panama Canal and Cuba as well) but at a cost to army effeciency and increased naval costs, and a ban on colonization overseas completely until after the SpAm War. I like the HoI and EUI/II methods of giving a choice to the player but balanced by both benefits and costs.

 

[dharper]

I'd like to see a series of 'awards' given out at the game's end. Of course, there would be the '#1' awards, such as Most Powerful Nation, Richest Nation, Largest Nation, Most Advanced Nation, even Most Beloved Nation.

There would also be a series of awards designed to make playing smaller countries worthwhile, such as Greatest Expansion and other proportional awards (based on how industrialized or powerful you were to begin with - play the Dominican Republic and become a Great Power and you'll get far more than if you play Great Britain and stay a great power).

Finally, there could be some awards handed out to many nations, such as Colonial Power or Cohesive (kept all claimed provinces).

As a finishing touch, each of these awards could be seen as a medal or trophy - it would be wonderful to see the page filled with ribbons and gold if I won big-time, and even playing a minor nation I could see one or two.

(This post is mostly copied from a similar post I made in the HOI2 forum, but I'd like to see it in Victoria as well - one of my complaints is that playing a small country can be rewarding, but you'd never know it on the End screen).

 

[Vargas]

Real loans.

I wish that the loans i take comes from capiyalists with lots of money from my contry or rich countries like UK and its capitalists. I should be able to set my interest rate and the loans would be given to me if i have good relation, a good interest rate and better economy. The country that has the best combination gets the loan. Also economic techs will reduce the interest i pay, i. e.: I offer 4%/year and I have a tech that pays me 2% so i will only pay the other 2% and the capitalist who gave me the money will receive 4%.

I think this idea would be interesting becouse the capitalists would work as real investidors helping the world, and maybe your country, to develop industries and infra-structure. Also they would have a real income such as the other workers.

I hope you guys understood my idea since my english is not that good. :wacko:

 

[Hansag]

Inflation

Inflation (general rice in prices) should play a role in the game, likewise deflation (the opposite of inflation). Thus how a country want to finance it's budget would be of interesst. "Oh, did it cost that much to by that railroad and factory? Well, have the central bank print up some more cash then " (on the other hand, this leads to inflation which makes the POPs less able to use their savings to by goods and the next factory and railroad more "expensive" since your money is less valuble etc.)

I would also like to agree with Vargas. The money capitalists have should play a larger role. Even so if you need some cash, they might be able to lend it to you. However, your countrys credit rating would be of great importance here. Who want to lend money to someone who can't pay it back/have a bad reputation when it comes to loans?

Also, there should be some sort of GDP factor in the game. And "clerks" should be able to employ themselves in some way (or in combination with capitalists).

 

[LordScod]

My Moderate REquest.

Why are there no moderates?

We got Conservatives and Liberals. Why no in between?

 

[aprof]

Why are there no moderates?

We got Conservatives and Liberals. Why no in between?

Perhaps the people of consciousness 4, 5, 6 could be considered the moderates. They are neither strongly conservative nor strongly liberal. Especially if their militancy is low.

Militant moderates? Is that possible anyway?

 

[Gezz Inti]

Why are there no moderates?

We got Conservatives and Liberals. Why no in between?

If you don't mean liberals the way americans mean, than there is nothing in between. Apart from periodical and specific examples, liberals can be counted as moderate. Especially in the 19th century there was no distinguished international (or widespread national) political movement(s) of moderates. But there were (and are) moderate conservative, moderate liberal and even moderate socialist parties/movements.

EDIT: Ahh, aprof. That had to happen if one replies half an hour after he opens the page.

 

[unmerged(34946)]

Political Leaders

leadership and leaders affecting politics. This should be done similar to military leaders. They will go from province to province or state to state. They can affect pops politics. Each party could have a leader or if they country has no leaders, it would just be generic. The party screen should look simiar ro an army screen. This would enable historic leaders and event driven leaders also, etc. Lenin in Russia. Leaders could also revolt and become commanders of rebel units.
Militray leaders also should be able to be converted to political leaders. They will tend to conservative or reactionary as political leaders. A leader that is not leader of a party should be able to move and have a occupation like journalist or writer. Optin to exile should be given in depending or gov type and reforms. If you have the right to ban a party then you could be able to exile or arrest or even execute, but that would have negative response.
A leader could be a pop with only one population or very similar.
Leaders could also effect research. A reactionary Cleric type leader in a muslim country could reduce research while a Socialist leader could also reduce research. A capitalist liberal leader could increase research points. Leaders that increase research while in a province which is beuilding something could decrease the time to build it.
Leaders could also be sent to other countries as ambassadors or agents. An ambassodor in a friendly country will keep relations at the same rate and even increase it. A agent in a enemy or unfriendly country could effect the pops in that country. This could lead to poor relations and even spark a war.
Many more things but I stop for now and let someone else talk.

 

[Kenshin]

literacy

Each POP should have literacy. So immigrants will increase or decrease your litteracy. Then it would be less intresting to take prov from illiterete states.

 

[Hansag]

Each POP should have literacy. So immigrants will increase or decrease your litteracy. Then it would be less intresting to take prov from illiterete states.

I totaly agree with this.

Maby there should be more than just a literacy-level. Primary, Secondary and Higher (tertiary) education? (Educationlevel; EL)

Maby this could be on a scale of five, with literacy being 1.0 for a population
2.0 Primary
3.0 Secondary
and so on with 5.0 being the highest and POPs (i.e. clerc POPs with a level as high as this might purely be Ph.D., or higher, scientists)

This would definetly be of interest for research in a country as well as production since a 0.0-1.0EL POP might only be able to do basic manual labour, or work in factories with some kinds of work requiering a certain EL. However, if a farmer POP advances from an EL of 1.0 to 3.0 some of them might "advance" to city-dwelling factory "labourers".
And when others from this category advance from say EL 2.0 to 4.0 they might become clercs. Clerks however should have a EL of 3.0 or more, and 4.0 might act as "researchers" och "educators" at "Educational "factories""

This way, one can set policies on what level of educations should be payed for by the government, and depending on the POPs "Education factories" might be built and government controlled or private. Likewise with "Healthcare factories".

One might also consider Upgrads (not just expansions) of factories. If you upgrade a "University", it might accomodate beter teaching and reasearch facileties, thus boosting output (EL-"production" and reasearch-"production").

However, maby only one such "factory" might be acceptable per state (?) or should it be possible for entrepreneurs to open up "service"-factories for education, healthcare, old-age care etc.

 

[borg1980]

my wishlist

Victoria is IMHO best Paradox game, but some things can be a bit better:
1. Time frame - 1815-1929 (or even 1789-1933)
2. Winter like in EU2.
3. Some private business
4. Better diplomacy (more influence on satelittes, ultimatums etc.)
5. Bilateral trade agreements.
6. Generals and admirals upgrading system like in HOI.
7. Something like 2 level civilizing nations system - uncivilized (african and
asian minors) and 'semi-civilized' (egypt, china, persia etc.).

 

[unmerged(26507)]

-Sorry for my bad english-

I want

- Insert VIP in the game
- Partial Mobilization (I have 100 divisions, but I want to mobilize only 30)
- Ultimatums
- Direct Trade (WM also). Embargos.
- Less ports (even all provinces has a port).
- Make "irregulars" (militia) in all nations, not only in uncivilized. A 6k militian could hold a "fort" until regulars arrive. Irregulars could be mounted o foot infantry.
- Artillery much more powerful, with bonifications against forts, entrechments, hills, etc.... +5 for each brigade.
- The topology and vegetation must affect all, the attacker and the defender, like climate. Perhaps -10 defender and -20 attacker.
- Naval battles much betters, with more bonifications, like climate (storm, wind, etc...), mines, open ocean or coastal sea, submarine bonification, stacking penalty, etc....
- Naval Blockades (affects trade, attrition, supplys, life, militancy, RGOs, etc...)
- It must be more difficult (expensive and longer) to make RR in jungle, desert, mountains, etc....)
- The AI must defend his claims, like his provinces.
- A colonial war could degenerate in a full war.
- More resources like horses, wine, sugar, big fishes (whales, etc...), more minerals, etc...
- A province must produce a variety of resources, not only one.
- I want to split my division in two, and defend two provincies. Also, I want to create 5k men (all types, infantry, irregulars-militia, cavalry, etc...)
- Much more events, like catastrophes (a lot of deads)
- Much more attrition in troops, even in his country. In the Crimean War, more than 50% casualties was by illness. Even in Cuba for example. A lower maintenancy, higher attrition (and lower organization, morale, etc...)
- Naval defeats (and ships sunk or damaged) must affect war exaustion (in both sides). Land defeats must affects prestige (in both sides)
- If you have low prestige, more militancy, more conciusness (something like this, sorry ), nobody wants a alliance (anything, a deal, a treaty...) with you. Prestige is useless now, i think.
- BB wars AI vs AI.
- More pops, like miners (iron, coal, precious metal, sulphur), farmers (fruit, grain, cattle), traders (improve RGOs and factories), labourers (in Russia and uncivilized, could work in all RGOs, but with low production), politicians (the dont do nothing ), sailors (MP for ships)
- Spliting pops (I want to split a 50k pop in 40k and 10k, and convert this 10k in soldiers, even the 50k....)
- Amunition and Fertilizers should use less sulphur.
- The Zhulus destroy the Italians in Adowa with 120k men.... could it be done in the game?
- Much more diplomats, for uncivilized, civilized and super powers.
- Improve the negociations, this isn´t balanced (including bilateral trade, embargos, military and naval pass, demand cessation of colonialims, demand stop attack on other coutry, etc....)
- More buildings (like Civilization) like operas (less militancy for example), university (more research and literacy), cinemas, power plants, etc....
- More time (a must) 1800 - 1933? Napoleonic wars and the Independence of America could be great in Vicky.
- Rives much more important (ships, more defense, hard to pass througt...)
- Much more stadistics, maps, and more.
- A good tutorial.
- A scenario editor, and much more modificable the game, i´ve been searching in all files the attrition mod, or de artillery bonus....

I wish Johan read this suggestions....

 

[unmerged(30848)]

Oooh, how about having the screen wherin you raise divisions or build ships show, besides all the costs, how long it will take to build and train?

 

[blur2005]

For the sake of historical accuracy, the way colonization works in Victoria needs to be changed. Perhaps you should be unable to build colonial outposts in the inner territories until around 1860, or make it depend on the geography of the area you're trying to colonize. If it's a flat savannah or desert, then perhaps you should be able to colonize inside of the coast earlier, but in the jungles and mountains, you should be unable to until adequate technology allows colonization in harsher geographies to be reasonable. Also, improving the A.I. in regards to colonization would be nice. I notice in a lot of my games that Britain doesn't try to colonize parts of Africa that might be connected to random territories it owns there or try to colonize it at all in earlier scenarios. All of the major European powers should at least have some interest in colonization, whether it be in Asia (for Russia, and, of course, Britain in India) or Africa.

On that note, I think the United States should be rewarded more for Manifest Destiny than it is currently in the game. The wide open west was one of the main reasons the United States never needed to become a giant colonial power, even when it had the means in the late 19th century. Obviously under Teddy Roosevelt and others before that, the U.S. asserted it's control over the Western Hemisphere and with Hawaii and many of the Pacific islands. But those don't reward in prestige nearly as much as some of the giant colonial claims in Africa can. If that could be balanced out, that would be great for the accuracy of the game.

Overall, if the ability to colonize is pushed back or made more tedious and expensive before 1860 or so, that would greatly help the accuracy and realism of Victoria. That way Russia won't have a colony in West Africa in 1845, which is a little ridiculous.

Speaking of Russia in Africa, if spheres of influence were created, that would also help this game. By the late 19th century, only Britain, Belgium, France, Portugal, the Ottomans and Germany had significant claims on Africa, as well as a small claim by Spain in Rio de Oro and the Italians in Libya. It did not make sense for the Russians to be in Africa because they had all of this land to the east to look at, as well as Manchuria and China. Also, Sweden and Denmark did not have the capacity to colonize Africa, but they still sometimes claim pieces of it. I mean, if you're playing those nations, that's okay, but c'mon, it's a bit far-fetched for the A.I. to do this. But spheres of influence could really help represent the dominance of certain countries in certain geographical regions, like Austria-Hungary in the Balkans, or Prussia among the German states. The current system of satellite states does not exactly represent the influence of Prussia on say, Saxony. But it does work with Canada and Britain or true satellites like that. Anyway, fixing colonization and having sphere's of influence would greatly improve Victoria.

 

[supergamelin]

here are a few points:
1) military:
-Have units move faster than a snail especialy in the earlier years.

-Battles should last only a few days up to the 1880's not weeks. This should gradualy increase over the time span.

-Stop having units fight to the last man, that does not make sense, especially for large armies( one of the worst features of the game).

-Armies should be brought down to a reasonable size though some effort has been made already.

-reduce Sea movement and invasion to reasonable sizes. Seeing 300,000 men British landings during the Crimean war is not fun, just preposterous, not that I don't manage to beat them with my equally oversized army, but a minimum level of historical credibility would be very much welcome.........

2)Economics
-I've seen several suggestions about auto upgrades of pop's and limiting the ability to uprgade them and think this should be done.

-Introduce Specific pops to represent all the people being neither peasant nor industry workers or soldiers, like merchants Shopkeepers, small artisans........ Those certainly outnumber industry workers except mayby in the most industrialized nations by the turn of the 20th century, however they're not represented, clerks being merely upgraded factory workers.

-Reduce the size of industries to something more historical. A level 1 factory can employ up to 500,000 workers. By 1917 Russia counted some 3,000,000 factory workers, that makes for 6 fully manned factory levels, pretty much what we get at the start of the game. Still by 1917 80% of the Russian population were peasants and should be farmer pops not working in mines..... Actually, the whole resource/factory system should be reworked in depth to get a more realistic population. Not that the current system does not work, it just does have little to do with reality, which is somewhat annoying for what is supposed to be a historical game after all

-It would be nice to have the economic data presented in a more concrete way. Like yearly production of coal, iron steal in tons....., rather than daily production in units which convey little meaning. It would give a much better feeling of managing the economy and add a lot of historical flavour. For exemple I would prefer to know that in 1865 my country has produced 2,000,000 tons of coal 1,000,000 tons of iron 100,000 tons of steel and 50,000 rifles. This would give an idea of how my industry is actually doing. Same thing for finance....

-Add locomotives as a product, and a transport capacity to the country that would be used by the economy and the military. IMO that's an important feature that is totally missing at the moment.