POPs or social classes?

[Verenti]

*holds up a Pro-Pops placard*

I think the idea of Pops is a grand idea, and I condemn any more towards CKizing EU3. Move away from notions of rpg elements and simplified social stuctures! This is GRAND strategy, MORE Complex! Make Manufactories like Victoria's Factories! Pops! Political Parties! More British Music!

While we're out here lets just Make Victoria 2 instead.

 

[Duuk]

*holds up a Pro-Pops placard*

I think the idea of Pops is a grand idea, and I condemn any more towards CKizing EU3. Move away from notions of rpg elements and simplified social stuctures! This is GRAND strategy, MORE Complex! Make Manufactories like Victoria's Factories! Pops! Political Parties! More British Music!

While we're out here lets just Make Victoria 2 instead.

heh. But keep in mind: Victoria was a grand failure specifically because of all the micromanagement. It's fine if you're a die hard... but a normal human being does not play Russia or the UK for the sheer clickfest.

 

[unmerged(36763)]

heh. But keep in mind: Victoria was a grand failure specifically because of all the micromanagement. It's fine if you're a die hard... but a normal human being does not play Russia or the UK for the sheer clickfest.

Well, if you take Russia or UK in Vic you aren't probably looking for a challenge, but a sandbox where you can do almost anything you want. Heck, even USA can become the world boss if played correctly at the start. Why people didnt buy vic, I dont know. But I dont think its a failure as a game, in any sense, if you make a few alowances for bugs and balance issues, and 1.03c has those sorted out well enough to make for a great game. Micromanagement is not half as bad as the detractors claim. And EU has a weakness is the opposite; downtime, most of the time, you arent doing much, unless you're fighting. And in war, most of your time in the game is spent sieging, at least in the earlier parts of the game. EU II is a game I wanted to love, but it just didnt do it for, but HoI and Vic did. Colonization, missionaries, and diplomacy are expensive and IMO awkward. I have a few other minor issues, but the overall issue I take is nuance. There is a nuance and measure of control over the game I desire, I get it in hoi and Vic, but I never got it in EU, I feel like too much is beyond my control. Because this is a series I WANT to like, Im hoping in EU III, we get some chance to work with the people of our nation, so I feel like my social and economic policies are actually being realized in some measure. EU is too much like Risk or something similar to me. There are products, but they dont do anything other than generate money, or give a bonus of some sort. It would be nice if I could do something with them.

And I'll wager that a lot of people agree with me on this, they just arent as vocal as the opposing view.

 

[Duuk]

Micromanagement is not half as bad as the detractors claim.

r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r


That's Victoria. Sometimes I can enjoy the game (until the scripted events break my feel and desire to continue my excellent Mexico game), but for the most part...

Click Promote/Craftsman Click Promote Click Promote <switch province>
Click Promote Click Promote <wait for more paper> Click Promote

r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r

Is a bit too much for me.

 

[unmerged(36763)]

r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r


That's Victoria. Sometimes I can enjoy the game (until the scripted events break my feel and desire to continue my excellent Mexico game), but for the most part...

Click Promote/Craftsman Click Promote Click Promote <switch province>
Click Promote Click Promote <wait for more paper> Click Promote

r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r

Is a bit too much for me.

Well, for what I find tedious about EU II is colonization, especially if you are goign to send more than one colonist at the same time. Even if you send one, you have to go back to the colonization screen, a second time to send the next one to the other place youre after. And the model is tedious too, 10 colonists have to be sent at least, and thats probably goign to be more because you re gonna fail a couple times. If you want to be colonial power, you really get annoyed with it. Keeping track of your explorers current location isnt much fun either.

 

[artemis667]

Click Promote/Craftsman Click Promote Click Promote <switch province>
Click Promote Click Promote <wait for more paper> Click Promote

Is a bit too much for me.

Agreed, the micro-management in Victoria could be interesting, but not if you were playing a country of more than a dozen provinces or so (and some were many, many, more...)

EU2's micro-management was much more limited, it's better that way. I mean, it's nice to have the option to micro-manage, but if you have to do lots of it to even stay afloat in the game, it takes the fun factor out.

I think there are a lot of game concepts that *could* be put into EU3, whether they should or not is another question. Social classes are always an interesting idea, but if they will be too much overhead, exploitable by a player, or too much for the AI to comprehend, they should stay out.

 

[Brownbeard]

We dont need micromanagement to kill EU2. Victoria would have been a better game if nations were not stalinist borg hives.

So, I'm against pops in Victoria sense. Maybe only as flavor, but I see no point in that, they'd merely clutter your RAM.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

I'm not sure if clergy is needed. Yes in some societies it was quite strong, but maybe. I'd also lump landless/disposses with peasant/commoners. I think some way to define warrior class outside nobility and commoners would be nice as well.

I'd actually say Clergy is one of the most important parts of the whole social model! In places as diverse as France, Bengal and Mesoamerica, what could be regarded as a 'clerical estate' were regarded (at least in official discourse) as the most important strata in society. And I'm not sure if you can find any society over the period anywhere which didn't rely in some manner on a 'professional' religious class, as religious authority and institutions were crucial means of maintaining social order throughout the period. And obviously, in the places where this wasn't so strong, this would be reflected by a lower % power value.

What could be called a 'permanent warrior class' over the period (rather than soldiers raised or conscripted from various sectors of the local population) generally tended to be itinerant groups of mercenaries, which were usually outside the control of state structures - so, these are probably best modelled by an expanded version of the EU2 mercenaries system, than by making them a definite 'social estate.'

 

[Flori]

I am not involved in the EU3 design. So that is just a personal comment:

When adding features, they should give something extra to the player. Ask yourself, "How would that make the game more fun, how would it make the game better?" Having pops or population classes just for the sake of having them sounds unlikely to me, and afaik the intent with EU3 is to not further increase micromanagement.

 

[unmerged(36763)]

Having pops or population classes just for the sake of having them sounds unlikely to me, and afaik the intent with EU3 is to not further increase micromanagement.

But no one is asking for that, so thats kind of a flip response.

 

[Symmetry]

heh. But keep in mind: Victoria was a grand failure specifically because of all the micromanagement. It's fine if you're a die hard... but a normal human being does not play Russia or the UK for the sheer clickfest.

Indeed, but just because a game has pops doesn't mean that you have to be forced to micromanage them. In real life pops converted from laborers to craftsmen without the leader having to step in and tell them to, and forcing you to do so in Victoria made the game both less realistic and less fun. Just the same, I liked looking at all the nice little graphs and seeing immigration and what percentage of my population had what politics and what ethnic group, so I think that if there had been a single "Set Pop Promotion Policy" menu then the pops in Victoria would have been a big success.

In EUIII I think Pops could be done well. Say you reconquer southern Iberia as Spain. You click a button in the province to send in a missionary, and a little missionary figure appears in the province just like in EUII. It costs a certain amount of money each year like a build in HOI2 and it has this little completion bar underneath. When the bar fills in each of the little pops has a chance of being converted, and you can look and see if which has converted. Then the bar under the missionary starts filling again, and eventually you get rid of the missionary or it happens automatically when everyone in the province is catholic. I always enjoyed watching all the little pops in Vicky even if I didn't like haveing to manage them, and I think pops would be good in EUIII so long as the player doesn't have to manage them directly.

 

[Jayavarman]

I always enjoyed watching all the little pops in Vicky even if I didn't like haveing to manage them, and I think pops would be good in EUIII so long as the player doesn't have to manage them directly.

Precisely.

 

[Smirfy]

I am not involved in the EU3 design. So that is just a personal comment:

When adding features, they should give something extra to the player. Ask yourself, "How would that make the game more fun, how would it make the game better?" Having pops or population classes just for the sake of having them sounds unlikely to me, and afaik the intent with EU3 is to not further increase micromanagement.

Amen

 

[Strategist]

To be reasonably accurate, I'd guess you'd need the following broad social classes, which could be abstracted to most societies over the period:

* Nobles/Aristocrats
* Clergy
* Bourgeoisie/Mercantile class
* Artisans
* Peasants
(* Maybe a 'dispossessed/landless' grouping as well...)

Peasants existed in western europe (France, the Netherlands, England) but in eastern europe, it were almost only serfs. That difference may seem unimportant, but the difference was very important, as it prepared for much of the wealth during the 17th century (the peasants would become active to produce things in their homes, the serfs never did), and that same difference made the agricultural and the industrial revolution possible later on, after this time period...

 

[saskganesh]

so for game purposes, serfs=slaves ?

 

[Zanza]

I would like to see multiple cultures per province and at most a class system like CK. Everything else is too complicated.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Peasants existed in western europe (France, the Netherlands, England) but in eastern europe, it were almost only serfs. That difference may seem unimportant, but the difference was very important, as it prepared for much of the wealth during the 17th century (the peasants would become active to produce things in their homes, the serfs never did), and that same difference made the agricultural and the industrial revolution possible later on, after this time period...

Of course, but the 'enserfment' of peasants in central and eastern Europe actually occured over the course of the EU2 period, and as such could probably be better modelled by differences in class power, policy choices and slider values, which would all combined to impact economic productivity in different ways.

Creating a number of different categories for what is essentially the same social function (eg. low-level agricultural producer - albeit with differing legal rights and status in each territory) might complicate matters a bit too much.

 

[unmerged(53986)]

I would like to see multiple cultures per province and at most a class system like CK. Everything else is too complicated.

Signed!

Even the class ala CK is a bit strange, there it served to give different taxes and to grant a army. But in EU3?
I mean with serfdom-freedom that can be mostly simulated...

 

[Guinnessmonkey]

I´d presume a somewhat streamlined version of the CK social classes might be made to work, but POPs would be way too much.

No comment.

 

[unmerged(10426)]

Is a bit too much for me.

I firmly believe that enough interaction with the economic/trade aspects of Victoria will eventually lead to brain stem death and probable falling over.