-
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.
Dynamic politics.
Dynamic parties.
Parties should reflect society and forces within society. It's kind of stupid that parties reflect so closely history.
Historical simulation is always nice but ahistorical simulation is better.
Dynamic parties.
Parties should reflect society and forces within society. It's kind of stupid that parties reflect so closely history.
Historical simulation is always nice but ahistorical simulation is better.
Dreadnoughts.
Dreadnoughts should cost more. Dreadnoughts should also give you prestige when you own them and lose you twice as much prestige when lost. Simulate the Dreadnought Race better I say!
Also you should be able to buy and sell ships. So the UK could build dreadnoughts for client nations.
Dreadnoughts should cost more. Dreadnoughts should also give you prestige when you own them and lose you twice as much prestige when lost. Simulate the Dreadnought Race better I say!
Also you should be able to buy and sell ships. So the UK could build dreadnoughts for client nations.
fix the part where you cant dissolve an alliance when you have no diplomatic actions even though dissolving it cost nothing when you have one
countries must be persistant in historical wars caused by events (so that the shape of countries will be more acceptable)
Change the actual market system to other more realist. And make more events in general.
more resources and more diplomatic options
and also,pls pls pls come out a vicky 2!!
empire under the sun-new imperialism
and also,pls pls pls come out a vicky 2!!
empire under the sun-new imperialism
A way to possibly ally with certain rebels or support them as someone earlier said.
For example, if some rebels rebel from the Ottoman because their nationalist Greeks, shouldn't they welcome and not fight a Greek army that reaches them? Possibly join them?
For example, if some rebels rebel from the Ottoman because their nationalist Greeks, shouldn't they welcome and not fight a Greek army that reaches them? Possibly join them?
Yes. Infact, I think rebels should be assigned a faction (party) when created, depending on their own ideology and issues.
nationality
I think the concept of nationality should be strengthend.
There should be something like an attitude of a nationality towards a country.
If f.e. Prussia fights a war against Poland, the Polish minority in Prussia should become much more militant. If Russia joines Poland in a war, the polish minority in russia should get less militant.
Also rebels should have a nationality. So a polish rebel can attack provinces with a polish population in nabouring countries, in case that country has a bad relationship with polish nationality. Good minority rights (full_citizenship) could improve that relationship.
I think the concept of nationality should be strengthend.
There should be something like an attitude of a nationality towards a country.
If f.e. Prussia fights a war against Poland, the Polish minority in Prussia should become much more militant. If Russia joines Poland in a war, the polish minority in russia should get less militant.
Also rebels should have a nationality. So a polish rebel can attack provinces with a polish population in nabouring countries, in case that country has a bad relationship with polish nationality. Good minority rights (full_citizenship) could improve that relationship.
More real gameplay...
I think that it is a great deception as it was for me for all who like History to see by playing VICTORIA that the British Empire can have more than 500.000 army (in the 1840's !) on macedonia's ground for a war with the Ottoman Empire in ... . This is just enough to turn this game to the level of a pacman !
Paradox should look very carefully that it is the "realistic" historical approach of these strategy oriented games that makes them interesting.
The solution is that a team of beta testers or players with even a low level of Historic academic background certifies that the developpements of the game is not so far from historical reality in terms of quantities !
Then we'll see for the quality...(names etc.)
Thank you for your attention. I think my remarks going to help the amelioration of this game.
I think that it is a great deception as it was for me for all who like History to see by playing VICTORIA that the British Empire can have more than 500.000 army (in the 1840's !) on macedonia's ground for a war with the Ottoman Empire in ... . This is just enough to turn this game to the level of a pacman !
Paradox should look very carefully that it is the "realistic" historical approach of these strategy oriented games that makes them interesting.
The solution is that a team of beta testers or players with even a low level of Historic academic background certifies that the developpements of the game is not so far from historical reality in terms of quantities !
Then we'll see for the quality...(names etc.)
Thank you for your attention. I think my remarks going to help the amelioration of this game.
geokerk said:
Please see the latest update #5 regarding new features that will be added to Revolutions regarding army promotion. That should address your concerns.
(and regarding your comment on the beta testers, I'm a beta tester, and former PhD candidate in Islamic history, specialization in the 19th C Ottoman Empire. I can assure you there are plenty of beta testers with deep historical background working on Victoria : Revolutions. However, getting the game mechanics so that they can be manipulated to be more historical while at the same time not hamstringing the gaming potential of human players completely is a separate issue entirely, and in the end if it is an issue of historicalness vs gameplay on a feature or issue, gamplay must trump historicalness. Victoria and all the other Paradox titles are NOT historical simulators, but strategy games set in a historical environment, and those two things are not the same.)
Proposals concerning the badboy:
1. A high BB should be a legitimate casus belli,
so there is no loss of prestige, if you attack such a high-BB-country.
2. you should be able to claim provinces for allies in a peace deal,
but also for non allies or not yet independent nations.
e.g.: Britain has beaten Russia badly, but does not have any intererests in their provinces.
So they could claim Finnish provinces of Russia for Finnland
and then Finnland will become independent.
That way you could harm your enemy without getting a huge BB.
So if you claim a province for an ally,or a sattelite you get BB,
but not as much, as you would get if you claim it for your own.
If you claim a province for a neutral country, or to
free a country, you get no BB.
3.the BB you get should be linked to the impotance of the povince you get, also
you should get less BB for colonial povinces and more BB for claiming core provinces
from your enemy.
4. Finally, less BB if you didn´t start the war. Like Poland after WW2 received
one fifth of Germany without beeing concidered as an agressive country.
It was perceived as a fair punishment of Germany beacause they started the war.
1. A high BB should be a legitimate casus belli,
so there is no loss of prestige, if you attack such a high-BB-country.
2. you should be able to claim provinces for allies in a peace deal,
but also for non allies or not yet independent nations.
e.g.: Britain has beaten Russia badly, but does not have any intererests in their provinces.
So they could claim Finnish provinces of Russia for Finnland
and then Finnland will become independent.
That way you could harm your enemy without getting a huge BB.
So if you claim a province for an ally,or a sattelite you get BB,
but not as much, as you would get if you claim it for your own.
If you claim a province for a neutral country, or to
free a country, you get no BB.
3.the BB you get should be linked to the impotance of the povince you get, also
you should get less BB for colonial povinces and more BB for claiming core provinces
from your enemy.
4. Finally, less BB if you didn´t start the war. Like Poland after WW2 received
one fifth of Germany without beeing concidered as an agressive country.
It was perceived as a fair punishment of Germany beacause they started the war.
.png){kind=avatar}
1)A way to organise the POPs in the province POP list thing, so as to arrange them by culture or occupation or size or whatever, kind of like how you can organise the goods in the trade and production thingies.
2) ability to reduce and remove fortifications, should cost both money and explosives to do.
2) ability to reduce and remove fortifications, should cost both money and explosives to do.
Tilly said:
Actually, it was rather perceived as an easy way to get rid of the Poles who lived in Eastern Poland, which the USSR had annexed according to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The reason why Poland was not perceived as an aggressive country was that it had virtually nothing to do with this. The Soviets forcibly deported a few million Poles and Germans (of whom a few millions died in the process, by the way) westward so they could push their border a little farther into Europe without outright annexing Poland (which would have been a BB problem *g*)
Sorry for this OT post, but everytime I hear the words "fair punishment" when talking about what happened in Eastern Europe after WW2 I get close to a mental breakdown. In fact, what the Soviets commited there were crimes. And if you take a look at the statistics, you will see that they are about in the same order of magnitude like what the Nazis had been doing there in the years before.
The problem is that badboy is not a good system to use. But we have to stick with it, since the AI isn't strong enough to deal with protecting their interests in certain areas.
Andrelvis said:
True enough!
However, I would like to see a change in the effects BB has.
I never find BB wars work - all that happens is that I take more land, and incur more BB in the process.
Mind you, in my ongoing CTW campaign, I have had 2 BB wars! Both of which were only Colonial! I am playing on the maximum aggression level btw. What I wouldd like to see it the AI forming alliances with other nations only valid against the BB nation - kind of the inverse of the exception clause in alliances.
If done well, it would make a real threat. For example, if I play as France, and have been on an annexing spree. If Spain formed an alliance with the UK, Austria, Bavaria and Prussia (or Germany if united) valid only against France. This would involve me fighting on 3 fronts against respectable to strong military powers. Perhaps the leader could warn the BB nation (like the warning in EU2) not to amass more BB
Just a thought.
jonti-h said:
A good idea, and might be used even not necessarily linked to BB. For example, let's say UK and France want to divide China between themselves. Then they make an alliance only against China.
Another type of alliance could be regional alliances, for example, UK's alliance with Indian minor could only be valid in Asia. So, if someone with possessions in Asia declares war against Britain, the Indian minors join in. If, for example, the United States or Transvaal declare war against the UK, they don't.