Proposal(s) for Victoria 3
- Thread starter Pellaken
- Start date
-
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.
I think it's a very interesting idea. Mount and Blade is another game that portrayed more realistic amounts of control that you have as a ruler over armies. You could only directly control your own personal force, and command other generals to follow you. Things are of course different in the 19th century, but still at no point does the ruler of a country do the job of every single officer in the entire army - reorganizing divisions, moving armies, everything. What the ruler or his administration or the Grand Marshal would do is appoint generals, move troops to different fronts, set targets, suggest types of strategy (defensive, offensive, blitz).
On thing that really needs to be a feature in Victoria III is the evolution that actually came to life in military operations of the period.
Its simply amazing that in Victoria II planes/tanks are mere additions to an army, and submarines and carriers are non-existent. Telegraph wires and instant radio communications should be a factor as well. These were in fact world changing technologies, and the way they are simulated in the game mechanic is absolutely nonexistent. :blink:
A mechanized infantry unit behaves differently and fights differently than a CW era Corps of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Concepts like Airspace became important in the first World War, so too was the invention of bombers and strategic bombing. In a game that runs until 1938, an era where these advances in weaponry were already known and in use before the start of WWII, the fact that they were not modeled at all makes the game insufficient as a Victorian era simulator. :glare:
Submarines were in the first Victoria game, sure they were poorly modeled, but that does not mean their absence is no noticed in Victoria II. In fact, the entire naval mechanic is so poorly featured, and abstracted it would have been a better for the game if the economy was similarly abstracted (At least the learning curve would have been far simpler).
Its simply amazing that in Victoria II planes/tanks are mere additions to an army, and submarines and carriers are non-existent. Telegraph wires and instant radio communications should be a factor as well. These were in fact world changing technologies, and the way they are simulated in the game mechanic is absolutely nonexistent. :blink:
A mechanized infantry unit behaves differently and fights differently than a CW era Corps of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Concepts like Airspace became important in the first World War, so too was the invention of bombers and strategic bombing. In a game that runs until 1938, an era where these advances in weaponry were already known and in use before the start of WWII, the fact that they were not modeled at all makes the game insufficient as a Victorian era simulator. :glare:
Submarines were in the first Victoria game, sure they were poorly modeled, but that does not mean their absence is no noticed in Victoria II. In fact, the entire naval mechanic is so poorly featured, and abstracted it would have been a better for the game if the economy was similarly abstracted (At least the learning curve would have been far simpler).
I would rather see more expansions made to Vicky 2 than see a new full game just yet. The two big things I would really like to see are an improved goods transportation system and possibly the addition of companies.
The transportation system is another must in my book. It could get bonuses for railroad levels in your country, and you could allow other countries to move good through your country if your infrastructure is better, its a shorter distance, or they are in your sphere, etc. Ships could also move goods between ports, and perhaps the naval base level could act more as a port development level, that way the higher level naval bases could handle higher volumes of goods coming in and out. If the Naval base couldn't or shouldn't do this, perhaps we can see a new port building that capitalists can invest in. After this we could see the introduction of submarines as a new naval unit (well, they were in Vicky 1, so not that new) that specialize in cutting sea supply lines, perhaps wherever they are operating goods being transported along that supply path are reduced by a percentage rate. Ships could also blockade ports, depriving them of goods, which would make the crippling blockades that happened in real life (like the blockade of Germany during WW1) a reality and make navies a very important part of your empire.
For companies, capitalists could form them in your country, and compete with other companies. They would essentially be a conglomeration of factories and their capitalist owners.They could get bonuses like those for vertical integration, and there could be more social reforms aimed at curbing monopolies, etc.
Another nice benefit to the game would be the ability to specifically designate the upkeep levels of individual armies instead of all land units at once. The regular upkeep slider can stay, but then in the military tab you can reallocate the funds your army gets (say I set upkeep at 60% in the econ tab, I could go into the military tab and give 80% to one army and set another equal supply sucking army to 40%, the intention being the 80% army is for fighting on the fronts in a smaller war where I do not need all of my armies, while the 40% stays home as a reserve army).
Finally, it would be nice if they removed the limitation that you can only have 1 great power ally, I think two would be good as there are plenty of historical examples of countries with 2 GP allies.
The transportation system is another must in my book. It could get bonuses for railroad levels in your country, and you could allow other countries to move good through your country if your infrastructure is better, its a shorter distance, or they are in your sphere, etc. Ships could also move goods between ports, and perhaps the naval base level could act more as a port development level, that way the higher level naval bases could handle higher volumes of goods coming in and out. If the Naval base couldn't or shouldn't do this, perhaps we can see a new port building that capitalists can invest in. After this we could see the introduction of submarines as a new naval unit (well, they were in Vicky 1, so not that new) that specialize in cutting sea supply lines, perhaps wherever they are operating goods being transported along that supply path are reduced by a percentage rate. Ships could also blockade ports, depriving them of goods, which would make the crippling blockades that happened in real life (like the blockade of Germany during WW1) a reality and make navies a very important part of your empire.
For companies, capitalists could form them in your country, and compete with other companies. They would essentially be a conglomeration of factories and their capitalist owners.They could get bonuses like those for vertical integration, and there could be more social reforms aimed at curbing monopolies, etc.
Another nice benefit to the game would be the ability to specifically designate the upkeep levels of individual armies instead of all land units at once. The regular upkeep slider can stay, but then in the military tab you can reallocate the funds your army gets (say I set upkeep at 60% in the econ tab, I could go into the military tab and give 80% to one army and set another equal supply sucking army to 40%, the intention being the 80% army is for fighting on the fronts in a smaller war where I do not need all of my armies, while the 40% stays home as a reserve army).
Finally, it would be nice if they removed the limitation that you can only have 1 great power ally, I think two would be good as there are plenty of historical examples of countries with 2 GP allies.
- 2
Can I just say I LOVE how there are so many great suggestions and I hope Paradox implements as many as possible and logically.
I haven't read the thread yet (shame on me! I will read it when I get more time!), but I suggest this:
More city-building aspects!
Building in Victoria 2 is great. I love expanding and building railroads, naval bases and forts. But I would love, LOVE to see more building options! I would like to see buildings that increase research points (schools, laboratories, universities, etc.), police stations, hospitals, and more! I'd like to really hand-craft my provinces a bit more, and have some interesting decisions to make about what to build (Do I want to spend the resources to build a hospital in this province? OR, how about forget the hospital and build a nice Military Academy which gives my troops a bonus to their experience and morale? etc. etc.). I love city-building in other strategy games and think it would be a nice addition to Victoria.
Ciao!
More city-building aspects!
Building in Victoria 2 is great. I love expanding and building railroads, naval bases and forts. But I would love, LOVE to see more building options! I would like to see buildings that increase research points (schools, laboratories, universities, etc.), police stations, hospitals, and more! I'd like to really hand-craft my provinces a bit more, and have some interesting decisions to make about what to build (Do I want to spend the resources to build a hospital in this province? OR, how about forget the hospital and build a nice Military Academy which gives my troops a bonus to their experience and morale? etc. etc.). I love city-building in other strategy games and think it would be a nice addition to Victoria.
Ciao!
- 1
I love Victoria 2 and I love it mostly for its fantastic modeling of a(n) (inter)national economy.
I'm an Econ student and so to have at my disposal a complete rendering of consumers and suppliers and a government which can levy taxes and subsidize facotires; that's just an amazing tool of experimentive entertainment for me. I however feel like I have two suggestions that might add to the rich impression of the Victoria 2 economic models, some ideas that I have had in my head for a while: cooperatives and nationalized industry! A posted a minor thread about this a while back and since then the ideas has steadily grown. I'm posting it in this thread, since it seems like the go-to thread for wacky suggestions and because I don't know if my idea can be implemented in the framework of the Vic2 engine.
What fascinates me in Vic2 is the distribution of factory profits which AFAIK is 50 % to craftsmen and 50 % to capitalits. And I've always wondered: what if it was 100 % to the workers? What if the profits went directly to the government instead of capitalists?
I've always thought that the Vic2 way of modelling state ownership or even a planned economy merely means subsidizing the factory in question, even when it does nothing with the distribution of the income. But if there existed a way of nationalizing a factory properly, one would be able to have games in which socialist governments nationalize the "commanding heights of hte economy" to pay for a social dividend or a communist country where all the industry of the land pays for public expenditure (meaning no personal income taxes - such as in the Soviet Union!). Historically, there are numerous examples of nationalized industry in this time period - the reader of this post would surely know.
Cooperatives also have an important meaning in the V2 time period, although the idea of cooperatives were never quite as appealing as that of nationalized industries, especially to the primarily marxist socialist parties of that era. That aside, there were many occasions of cooperatives, like the British Rochdale Pioneers, the clusters of Emiglia Romagna in northern Italy, French cooperatives during the brief Paris Commune, and cooperatives in the agricultural sector in Denmark. But even though they weren't as popular as regular factories, I still feel that they should be included - and include a way of converting facotries to cooperatives. The player should be given the option of a cooperative worker self-management model of economic democracy instead of the state socialist way of the primarily marxist parties back then (other great figures on the Left, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin favoured cooperativess and were downright against nationalized industries).
Here is my idea of how they should work:
"Nationalization" (NAZ)
The distribution of income would be 50 % to the state and 50 % to the craftsmen/clerks. (This would ultimately mean a new income tab in the Budget Screen interface). This would function by clicking a button, like with subsidizing, but converting the factory in the proces - and probably recompsating the owner for maybe 50 % of the market cost of what it cost to build (nationalizations rarely compensated in full). This percentage could of course be open to modding and changes through events and like. Similarly, there should be a privatize button for nationalized factories, which works the other way around.
"Cooperativization" (COOP)
The distribution of income would be 100 % to the craftsmen/clerks. This would function by clicking a button, like with subsidizing, but converting the factory in the process - and recompensating the previous capitalist owners with the same as would have been for a nationalization. Now, this of course would render the capitalists with less income to invest for, so COOPs are probablhy best suited for a late game conversion, where real demand matters more than the increased rate of capital accumulation. An obvious question is whether cooperatives should a way of expanding by themselves or if they should rely on government investments. One could imagine a scenario where the capacity utilization of a factory is high (maybe 90 %), there is a sizable money reserve and of course a profit: should such a "critical mass" result in an expansion of the factory? Should capitalists be allowed to invest in a cooperative?
How I imagine different economic policies deal with these two new factory options:
"Laissez Faire"
The NAZ and the COOP buttons are greyed out. Just like you can't subsidize factories you can't alter with the ownership of the capital stock either. However, although nationalized factories would immediately be privatized in the event of a liberal party winning over a party with a state capitalist economic policy and has nationalized factories, cooperatives would be allowed to exist - they, basically, don't stand in the way of a free market economy.
"Interventionism"
Same as with LF with the simple exception that nationalized industry isn't automatically privatized. (Notice here, that Interventionism is an excellent choice for a established Cooperative industrial economy, which doesn't want to diversify, but only grow by manually expanding your cooperatives.)
"State Capitalist"
Has the option to both COOP and NAZ factories, but can't privatize (or de-nationalize) or de-cooperatize existing factories. (Or should they have the chance to privatize as well? What about factories created by you, the player, should they start as being nationalized or merely privately owned but subsized, like is the norm right now?)
"Planned Economy"
PE is a bit special. When a PE party comes into power, all industry should be nationalized immediately and previous owners would not be compensated at all. Here you can't privatize or cooperatize any of your factories, giving PE economies (at least those that have industrial bases to speak of) a rich source of income: this would mean that games as communists would be radically different than others. It would also mean, that you as a communist country would be able to completely abolish the income tax. The income tax slider would become more of a regulator of the national wage.
I'm an Econ student and so to have at my disposal a complete rendering of consumers and suppliers and a government which can levy taxes and subsidize facotires; that's just an amazing tool of experimentive entertainment for me. I however feel like I have two suggestions that might add to the rich impression of the Victoria 2 economic models, some ideas that I have had in my head for a while: cooperatives and nationalized industry! A posted a minor thread about this a while back and since then the ideas has steadily grown. I'm posting it in this thread, since it seems like the go-to thread for wacky suggestions and because I don't know if my idea can be implemented in the framework of the Vic2 engine.
What fascinates me in Vic2 is the distribution of factory profits which AFAIK is 50 % to craftsmen and 50 % to capitalits. And I've always wondered: what if it was 100 % to the workers? What if the profits went directly to the government instead of capitalists?
I've always thought that the Vic2 way of modelling state ownership or even a planned economy merely means subsidizing the factory in question, even when it does nothing with the distribution of the income. But if there existed a way of nationalizing a factory properly, one would be able to have games in which socialist governments nationalize the "commanding heights of hte economy" to pay for a social dividend or a communist country where all the industry of the land pays for public expenditure (meaning no personal income taxes - such as in the Soviet Union!). Historically, there are numerous examples of nationalized industry in this time period - the reader of this post would surely know.
Cooperatives also have an important meaning in the V2 time period, although the idea of cooperatives were never quite as appealing as that of nationalized industries, especially to the primarily marxist socialist parties of that era. That aside, there were many occasions of cooperatives, like the British Rochdale Pioneers, the clusters of Emiglia Romagna in northern Italy, French cooperatives during the brief Paris Commune, and cooperatives in the agricultural sector in Denmark. But even though they weren't as popular as regular factories, I still feel that they should be included - and include a way of converting facotries to cooperatives. The player should be given the option of a cooperative worker self-management model of economic democracy instead of the state socialist way of the primarily marxist parties back then (other great figures on the Left, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin favoured cooperativess and were downright against nationalized industries).
Here is my idea of how they should work:
"Nationalization" (NAZ)
The distribution of income would be 50 % to the state and 50 % to the craftsmen/clerks. (This would ultimately mean a new income tab in the Budget Screen interface). This would function by clicking a button, like with subsidizing, but converting the factory in the proces - and probably recompsating the owner for maybe 50 % of the market cost of what it cost to build (nationalizations rarely compensated in full). This percentage could of course be open to modding and changes through events and like. Similarly, there should be a privatize button for nationalized factories, which works the other way around.
"Cooperativization" (COOP)
The distribution of income would be 100 % to the craftsmen/clerks. This would function by clicking a button, like with subsidizing, but converting the factory in the process - and recompensating the previous capitalist owners with the same as would have been for a nationalization. Now, this of course would render the capitalists with less income to invest for, so COOPs are probablhy best suited for a late game conversion, where real demand matters more than the increased rate of capital accumulation. An obvious question is whether cooperatives should a way of expanding by themselves or if they should rely on government investments. One could imagine a scenario where the capacity utilization of a factory is high (maybe 90 %), there is a sizable money reserve and of course a profit: should such a "critical mass" result in an expansion of the factory? Should capitalists be allowed to invest in a cooperative?
How I imagine different economic policies deal with these two new factory options:
"Laissez Faire"
The NAZ and the COOP buttons are greyed out. Just like you can't subsidize factories you can't alter with the ownership of the capital stock either. However, although nationalized factories would immediately be privatized in the event of a liberal party winning over a party with a state capitalist economic policy and has nationalized factories, cooperatives would be allowed to exist - they, basically, don't stand in the way of a free market economy.
"Interventionism"
Same as with LF with the simple exception that nationalized industry isn't automatically privatized. (Notice here, that Interventionism is an excellent choice for a established Cooperative industrial economy, which doesn't want to diversify, but only grow by manually expanding your cooperatives.)
"State Capitalist"
Has the option to both COOP and NAZ factories, but can't privatize (or de-nationalize) or de-cooperatize existing factories. (Or should they have the chance to privatize as well? What about factories created by you, the player, should they start as being nationalized or merely privately owned but subsized, like is the norm right now?)
"Planned Economy"
PE is a bit special. When a PE party comes into power, all industry should be nationalized immediately and previous owners would not be compensated at all. Here you can't privatize or cooperatize any of your factories, giving PE economies (at least those that have industrial bases to speak of) a rich source of income: this would mean that games as communists would be radically different than others. It would also mean, that you as a communist country would be able to completely abolish the income tax. The income tax slider would become more of a regulator of the national wage.
- 1
Vicy, as with other PI titles (and prolly even more so than others) is a very, very complex game to get into. It's so complex I have never really managed to fully grasp it. The same was true of EUIII and HoI3. However, CKII and especially EUIV, are much more intuitive and easier to learn - while retaining a lot of their complexity.
What I'm trying to say is, that CKII and EUIV are (relatively) easy to learn, but difficult to master, whereas previous titles have been difficult to learn and almost impossible to master.
I would therefore like to see a more intuitive approach to a lot that happens in VIII, and I think that can be done without compromising the challenge. But it will be difficult to accomplish, as (at least I) don't want a dumbed down game, just one that is easier to get into, but still leaves a lot of room for growth.
Another thing would be to improve the information available, just as is in CKII and was put into EUIV, i.e. improved tooltips.
What I'm trying to say is, that CKII and EUIV are (relatively) easy to learn, but difficult to master, whereas previous titles have been difficult to learn and almost impossible to master.
I would therefore like to see a more intuitive approach to a lot that happens in VIII, and I think that can be done without compromising the challenge. But it will be difficult to accomplish, as (at least I) don't want a dumbed down game, just one that is easier to get into, but still leaves a lot of room for growth.
Another thing would be to improve the information available, just as is in CKII and was put into EUIV, i.e. improved tooltips.
I totally agree! I thought about something similar the other day, how you could be able to build/decide where alot of important government buildings would lie maybe? I know of countries which have a lot of their important government buildings not in their capital, so I suppose that could be fun, and if you lost a city with those important facilities you would be really destabilized. Not sure if there's any good way of implementing this without doing way to much work for something little but yeah
I think March of the Eagles' system of forts and cities would work really well for Victoria III's warfare. Not necessarily the whole tactics thing, or the other complexities of MotE's warfare, because Vicky isn't a wargame, but I do really like the forts and cities. The only concern might be that it wouldn't be a great model for WWI, but at least up until 1900 I think it'd be great.
And it's not like Victoria II's warfare system does a good job modeling WWI either (still love this game, though).
And it's not like Victoria II's warfare system does a good job modeling WWI either (still love this game, though).
Probably better to counter that with an 'urbanization' rating, tbh - which would mesh nicely with more buildings etc.
Leon I think has a cool Idea, and I think I would really like it more in a game where maybe country leaders were more often military personnel so you could choose to have a personal force that you directly control and time passes in a way so that if you're too preoccupied in a battle you can't change anyone's orders, because you're in the thick of it... I don't know I'm tired and sometimes fantasize about a more rpg strategy game.
I've been brainstorming as to how we can make the "research" less detatched and more in sync with the rest of the game.
I have come up with a system which could better represent the heavy dependence on great thinkers and corporations.
First of all I propose that all "factories" you can build have actual names. Even if you have to create the name yourself. That'll be the base for the "corporation" later on. I propose also that factories may create subsidiaries on their own. Rather than having detatched factories working, we have an automobile factory that owns the steel industry on another province or even another country which actually has dibs on the produce of it for its cars. We need to better represent the actual capitalist connections between industries. They are not all independent works.
So for example. I'll go to Germany and think Bayer. (Pharmaceuticals) Fair enough, they have pharmaceutical industries around Germany. They may or may not have a monopoly. We need to represent how Bayer is also important on the R&D department.
So here comes my idea. I propose that there be a system where we compute great people limited by the year the game is in and the actual literacy of the world. For example if it's 1840, the game will have a limit of say 30 great people. There should be a new tab in the game where you can know how many great people and who they are. Those great people will have a favored industry type they'll try to get hired by. Once an industry conglomerate like Bayer has a great pharmaceutical around the world, they'll try to hire him. If they beat any other industry trying to hire him, he'll go to Germany and Bayer will actually employ him.
This will be the process that determines who is more advanced. The great pharmaceutical will work on things like Antibiotics and stuff like that.
However what if the reserach is not so simple? Imagine how we research tanks in V2. YOu just click and hope you get the 2% for tanks. However imagine having a conglomerate that works on artillery and automobiles, hiring a military expert.
He'll be sent out to wherever there are wars. For example WW1. He'll be in a specific zone, say belgium for example, researching that. He may of course even get killed. (This will all be automated by the AI. The player wouldn't normally have control over where the great person is). However the research isn't alone for the nation who's basing him. It'll be for the entire conglomerate. Say that conglomerate has industries all over europe, chances are everyone will get that tech eventually. The places where the tech was researched should have an almost immediate aquisition of the tech, along with the home nation. However if it's a german under the employment of the British, Germany will get that tech faster than say Poland. Eventually everyone will get that tech, depending on the actual trip the great person took and the relations with those who have that tech.
What I propose is basically a system where the whole world discovers stuff and not every nation individually, and the method I'm using is a Great person approach with a mixture of industrial conglomerates who may or may not be subsidized by the state.
If you want to be at the top of the military tech tree, you'll have to have a great industrial complex for military tech, and even if it gives you losses subsidizing that stuff, They'll have great chances of hiring more military experts and improving. However that also depends on the actual amount of wars around the world, the distance from the great person, etc.
As the years go by, say 1900, the great person number will increase to around 100, by 1920 it should be 120, etc. That would work instead of the actual model where you have "activation years" which seems arbitrary.
Of course a balance would need to be achieved, I'm just throwing numbers.
I feel like I didn't explain myself really well, so I'm free to answer questions you may have.
I have come up with a system which could better represent the heavy dependence on great thinkers and corporations.
First of all I propose that all "factories" you can build have actual names. Even if you have to create the name yourself. That'll be the base for the "corporation" later on. I propose also that factories may create subsidiaries on their own. Rather than having detatched factories working, we have an automobile factory that owns the steel industry on another province or even another country which actually has dibs on the produce of it for its cars. We need to better represent the actual capitalist connections between industries. They are not all independent works.
So for example. I'll go to Germany and think Bayer. (Pharmaceuticals) Fair enough, they have pharmaceutical industries around Germany. They may or may not have a monopoly. We need to represent how Bayer is also important on the R&D department.
So here comes my idea. I propose that there be a system where we compute great people limited by the year the game is in and the actual literacy of the world. For example if it's 1840, the game will have a limit of say 30 great people. There should be a new tab in the game where you can know how many great people and who they are. Those great people will have a favored industry type they'll try to get hired by. Once an industry conglomerate like Bayer has a great pharmaceutical around the world, they'll try to hire him. If they beat any other industry trying to hire him, he'll go to Germany and Bayer will actually employ him.
This will be the process that determines who is more advanced. The great pharmaceutical will work on things like Antibiotics and stuff like that.
However what if the reserach is not so simple? Imagine how we research tanks in V2. YOu just click and hope you get the 2% for tanks. However imagine having a conglomerate that works on artillery and automobiles, hiring a military expert.
He'll be sent out to wherever there are wars. For example WW1. He'll be in a specific zone, say belgium for example, researching that. He may of course even get killed. (This will all be automated by the AI. The player wouldn't normally have control over where the great person is). However the research isn't alone for the nation who's basing him. It'll be for the entire conglomerate. Say that conglomerate has industries all over europe, chances are everyone will get that tech eventually. The places where the tech was researched should have an almost immediate aquisition of the tech, along with the home nation. However if it's a german under the employment of the British, Germany will get that tech faster than say Poland. Eventually everyone will get that tech, depending on the actual trip the great person took and the relations with those who have that tech.
What I propose is basically a system where the whole world discovers stuff and not every nation individually, and the method I'm using is a Great person approach with a mixture of industrial conglomerates who may or may not be subsidized by the state.
If you want to be at the top of the military tech tree, you'll have to have a great industrial complex for military tech, and even if it gives you losses subsidizing that stuff, They'll have great chances of hiring more military experts and improving. However that also depends on the actual amount of wars around the world, the distance from the great person, etc.
As the years go by, say 1900, the great person number will increase to around 100, by 1920 it should be 120, etc. That would work instead of the actual model where you have "activation years" which seems arbitrary.
Of course a balance would need to be achieved, I'm just throwing numbers.
I feel like I didn't explain myself really well, so I'm free to answer questions you may have.
- 1
Vicy, as with other PI titles (and prolly even more so than others) is a very, very complex game to get into. It's so complex I have never really managed to fully grasp it. The same was true of EUIII and HoI3. However, CKII and especially EUIV, are much more intuitive and easier to learn - while retaining a lot of their complexity.
What I'm trying to say is, that CKII and EUIV are (relatively) easy to learn, but difficult to master, whereas previous titles have been difficult to learn and almost impossible to master.
I would therefore like to see a more intuitive approach to a lot that happens in VIII, and I think that can be done without compromising the challenge. But it will be difficult to accomplish, as (at least I) don't want a dumbed down game, just one that is easier to get into, but still leaves a lot of room for growth.
Another thing would be to improve the information available, just as is in CKII and was put into EUIV, i.e. improved tooltips.
I fould Victoria very very easy to learn and play, easier than EU; but that's because I like economic games. CK still confuses the hell out of me.
I hated the military micro-management when you are Russia with 500 division capability. any fix to that I'm open for.
Also, I really loved the military aspect of HOI3, with the border guarding, the AI management, and especially the chain of command. If they could put that in Victoria 3 I would be ecstatic.
Basically the only problems I have with Victoria 2 are military.
Also, I really loved the military aspect of HOI3, with the border guarding, the AI management, and especially the chain of command. If they could put that in Victoria 3 I would be ecstatic.
Basically the only problems I have with Victoria 2 are military.
I want to see V3 be more of an interaction between four elements - the player, POPs, characters, organizations
So that you know what I'm talking about:
1. the player - an idiot behind a monitor with a keyboard and a mouse with enough knowledge of history to know that France and Germany are not the same place
2. POPs - just as they are in V2, on the whole; population groups organized by wealth, religion, culture, etc.
3. characters - less detailed than CK2 of course, with exact detail depending on type. Types include major landowners, CEOs of corporations, hereditary nobles, military generals, labor leaders, politicians.
4. organizations - combination of characters, POPs, and, depending on the organization, factories and/or RGOs.
How do these guys all interact? Well, every RGO and factory that exists has a name and an "owner" character, which is nothing more than a name, culture, religion, wealth character, personality type. Connected to every RGO/factory is its workforce. Depending on circumstances, these RGOs/factories may gain enough money to purchase another RGO/factory, and if it does, then it will create a corporation, taking a name from a tag-specific list. Every corporation contains a CEO, which is a more fleshed-out character, a board of trustees (4 characters like the original "owner"), and its workforce. Without diving into the gritty details, every RGO/factory supports the corporation, and the corporation supports the factories/RGOs, and it will decide where/when to build more factories or buy them or even close them, and when large enough, can even expand overseas. To keep things fair, a corporation will only focus on one kind of "product" at a time, although it can purchase/build the factories and RGOs needed to make that product; to prevent frequent product-switching which would prevent other corporations from rising, product-switching results in some penalties to production and other elements for a few years. The actions of the CEO determine what the corporation does, the CEO is determined by the Board of Trustees, and the Board of Trustees is determined by the stockholders.
Additionally, all corporations sell stock in the country's stock market. Any POP or organization with stock gains a percentage of the annual unused profits of the corporation; normally, the corporation itself will hold 25% of its own stock to allow it to money to spend on factories and other things. Corporations can also hold stock in foreign countries, and the government can hold stock in its own internal and spheres' companies. If the stockmarket crashes, however...well, there's a reason that triggered panics and depressions.
Furthermore, every country has one or more banks, which loan money out to governments, private citizens, and organizations. Middle and upper-class POPs and characters, as well as some organizations, will sometimes decide to speculate in the stock market, buying on credit. Any POP with excess money will probably invest some in the local bank. Banks can also loan money to other banks, allowing another possibility for a chain reaction in the market. Banks are also run by "owners."
Railroad companies - I'm not quite sure how they'd be down, but probably a similar system to factories/RGOs, as well as naval shipping companies.
Not-for-profit organizations that span the globe such as Churches would also be modeled in a way that would not effect the economy much (besides providing some service to the poor maybe) but would impact the government. Labor unions would also be modeled in a similar way, I would assume.
Other miscellaneous characters would be characters with noble titles (in countries where they exist, even if they're powerless), major intellectuals, and miscellaneous politicians.
And now, how this all relates to politics. Every country has political organizations, which are not allowed to buy stock and do not sell stock. Every POP and character has a set of political beliefs, although in POPs they will change over time based on circumstances, which impacts which party and ideology it supports. A party's stances and ideological trends - it no longer has a set ideology, but rather will evolve over time - affect the characters that will be up for election and how elections pan out. Again, I don't have a definitive idea in mind, but how it should work is the voters and characters of a party in a province/state lend their political viewpoints to its candidate for national offices, a process that would also be affected by things such as the boss system, spoils system, and other methods of corruption if they exist...and the goal would be, they're not necessarily bad from the player's perspective, they're just how things are. A new party arises not at set dates but when criteria are met (which may be a set date after all) or militancy levels, CON among a particular POP (US Populists depend on CON and MIL among farmers), reform desire (US Progressives), issues (US Republicans - slavery), or other things. Things that affect elections would be the parties' budgets (based on donations from supporters), the issues of the population at large, and other things. Basically, the goal should be that the political landscape changes over time, because the parties aren't trying to uphold a particular set of ideals, they're trying to get elected. When there is no majority, parties will maneuver to form coalitions to get themselves at least some say in power.
How does this interact with the player? Well, for starters, the player gets a say in how parties evolve through election events - but rather than focusing on provinces or states, they focus on national party conventions. Additionally, the player can encourage certain industries in the economy, as well as encourage foreign investment, stock market investment, buying on credit, the purchase of land, etc. At the same time, however, the makeup of the upper and lower houses - as well as the character of the President/Prime Minister himself - influence what you can do, as they affect budgets, military spending, industry, social services, and even whether or not you can go to war. Simultaneously, though, you can influence the government - either through election events, encouraging certain issues, or by using a national focus on a particular governing body directly.
Thanks if you happened to read this wall of text, and let me know what you think.
So that you know what I'm talking about:
1. the player - an idiot behind a monitor with a keyboard and a mouse with enough knowledge of history to know that France and Germany are not the same place
2. POPs - just as they are in V2, on the whole; population groups organized by wealth, religion, culture, etc.
3. characters - less detailed than CK2 of course, with exact detail depending on type. Types include major landowners, CEOs of corporations, hereditary nobles, military generals, labor leaders, politicians.
4. organizations - combination of characters, POPs, and, depending on the organization, factories and/or RGOs.
How do these guys all interact? Well, every RGO and factory that exists has a name and an "owner" character, which is nothing more than a name, culture, religion, wealth character, personality type. Connected to every RGO/factory is its workforce. Depending on circumstances, these RGOs/factories may gain enough money to purchase another RGO/factory, and if it does, then it will create a corporation, taking a name from a tag-specific list. Every corporation contains a CEO, which is a more fleshed-out character, a board of trustees (4 characters like the original "owner"), and its workforce. Without diving into the gritty details, every RGO/factory supports the corporation, and the corporation supports the factories/RGOs, and it will decide where/when to build more factories or buy them or even close them, and when large enough, can even expand overseas. To keep things fair, a corporation will only focus on one kind of "product" at a time, although it can purchase/build the factories and RGOs needed to make that product; to prevent frequent product-switching which would prevent other corporations from rising, product-switching results in some penalties to production and other elements for a few years. The actions of the CEO determine what the corporation does, the CEO is determined by the Board of Trustees, and the Board of Trustees is determined by the stockholders.
Additionally, all corporations sell stock in the country's stock market. Any POP or organization with stock gains a percentage of the annual unused profits of the corporation; normally, the corporation itself will hold 25% of its own stock to allow it to money to spend on factories and other things. Corporations can also hold stock in foreign countries, and the government can hold stock in its own internal and spheres' companies. If the stockmarket crashes, however...well, there's a reason that triggered panics and depressions.
Furthermore, every country has one or more banks, which loan money out to governments, private citizens, and organizations. Middle and upper-class POPs and characters, as well as some organizations, will sometimes decide to speculate in the stock market, buying on credit. Any POP with excess money will probably invest some in the local bank. Banks can also loan money to other banks, allowing another possibility for a chain reaction in the market. Banks are also run by "owners."
Railroad companies - I'm not quite sure how they'd be down, but probably a similar system to factories/RGOs, as well as naval shipping companies.
Not-for-profit organizations that span the globe such as Churches would also be modeled in a way that would not effect the economy much (besides providing some service to the poor maybe) but would impact the government. Labor unions would also be modeled in a similar way, I would assume.
Other miscellaneous characters would be characters with noble titles (in countries where they exist, even if they're powerless), major intellectuals, and miscellaneous politicians.
And now, how this all relates to politics. Every country has political organizations, which are not allowed to buy stock and do not sell stock. Every POP and character has a set of political beliefs, although in POPs they will change over time based on circumstances, which impacts which party and ideology it supports. A party's stances and ideological trends - it no longer has a set ideology, but rather will evolve over time - affect the characters that will be up for election and how elections pan out. Again, I don't have a definitive idea in mind, but how it should work is the voters and characters of a party in a province/state lend their political viewpoints to its candidate for national offices, a process that would also be affected by things such as the boss system, spoils system, and other methods of corruption if they exist...and the goal would be, they're not necessarily bad from the player's perspective, they're just how things are. A new party arises not at set dates but when criteria are met (which may be a set date after all) or militancy levels, CON among a particular POP (US Populists depend on CON and MIL among farmers), reform desire (US Progressives), issues (US Republicans - slavery), or other things. Things that affect elections would be the parties' budgets (based on donations from supporters), the issues of the population at large, and other things. Basically, the goal should be that the political landscape changes over time, because the parties aren't trying to uphold a particular set of ideals, they're trying to get elected. When there is no majority, parties will maneuver to form coalitions to get themselves at least some say in power.
How does this interact with the player? Well, for starters, the player gets a say in how parties evolve through election events - but rather than focusing on provinces or states, they focus on national party conventions. Additionally, the player can encourage certain industries in the economy, as well as encourage foreign investment, stock market investment, buying on credit, the purchase of land, etc. At the same time, however, the makeup of the upper and lower houses - as well as the character of the President/Prime Minister himself - influence what you can do, as they affect budgets, military spending, industry, social services, and even whether or not you can go to war. Simultaneously, though, you can influence the government - either through election events, encouraging certain issues, or by using a national focus on a particular governing body directly.
Thanks if you happened to read this wall of text, and let me know what you think.
- 2
Some sugestions ans issues I got by thinking as well lurking in the web.
Blockade
Britain can use the entire Royal Navy to blockade Germany, but the Germans still get a lot of Grain from America... what? This is an issue linked to the fact Goods are "teleported" to the market instead from moving around in Caravans/Locomotives/Ships, a simple solution is simply making those elements actual things. You're Germany, you want to buy American grain, get some Merchant Ships and send them to an American port, collect and get back by paying tariffs or whatever the Americans asks and bring it back to the Fatherland, if you're Britain and want to swiftly bring Indian dye to London's factories, send Merchant ships there and bring it back.
However, Germany is at war against Britain, the Royal Navy is sinking every ship the German flag on it, the goods aren't arriving at all, the problem? Germany lost money for nothing, can't get any goods except for land routes (Railroads would work in almost the same way), basically, a finantial collapse.
Didn't think a lot in this idea, but the overview is it, blockading was an extremely effective tactic against opponents, if someone overpowered the Royal Navy and encircled the British Isles, the war is over in the next day.
Soft power
Victoria II seriously lack a fundamental element in politics, soft power. Again, I'm France and have Argentina in my Sphere, the current Argentine government doesn't want my capital in there, why can't I induce a new one to coop with me without spilling a drop of blood? That is good for both me and Argentina.
Multiple RGO per province
The entire world in Victoria is static in resource gathering, why not change? let's say I brought a estate around Krakow and started growing a wheat plantation, why can't my plantation be relevant? Why only coal gain money in Krakow? RGO could be similar to factories, but more limited, each province should be divided in "Agriculture" and "Extractivism" (placeholder names, don't get serious).
Agriculture can be changed and the POPs manages by cultivating wheat, potato, grapes, sugar, whatever they want and producing income to themselves, in Planned Economy and State Capitalism you can encourage/create estates for the POPs.
Of course each province would have attributes for certain types of resource (don't expect your potato farm in the Sahara to be more productive to Wool production).
"Extractivism" works with Minerals. Minerals can't be changed that easily, only if another one is discovered, and the production is more efficient (because it's more focused than in the farms).
Cabinet system
Pretty much self-explained, something like HoI.
More Government
In few word, government type means nothing, just how many reforms you government has passed or some thing pretty meh (Install Communist CB), also some espionage is really lacking, why can't I saboute my loyal subject that is getting too strong?
Another points is the elections, they simply pales before events, I spent the entire game as Prussia trying to get the Reactionaries (and then the Fascists) and got nothing because the "All pops get 50% socialists" events steamrolled all my decisions, making Elections chain pretty meaningless and annoying. Ideologies are flawed too, why my Prussia, where everyone is deeply patriotic and would die for the Eagle, vote in the Anti-Military liberals?
There are too many things I would cite and think about, but it's late night so I continue tomorrow (there's probably a lot os grammar mistakes, I'm sorry).
Blockade
Britain can use the entire Royal Navy to blockade Germany, but the Germans still get a lot of Grain from America... what? This is an issue linked to the fact Goods are "teleported" to the market instead from moving around in Caravans/Locomotives/Ships, a simple solution is simply making those elements actual things. You're Germany, you want to buy American grain, get some Merchant Ships and send them to an American port, collect and get back by paying tariffs or whatever the Americans asks and bring it back to the Fatherland, if you're Britain and want to swiftly bring Indian dye to London's factories, send Merchant ships there and bring it back.
However, Germany is at war against Britain, the Royal Navy is sinking every ship the German flag on it, the goods aren't arriving at all, the problem? Germany lost money for nothing, can't get any goods except for land routes (Railroads would work in almost the same way), basically, a finantial collapse.
Didn't think a lot in this idea, but the overview is it, blockading was an extremely effective tactic against opponents, if someone overpowered the Royal Navy and encircled the British Isles, the war is over in the next day.
Soft power
Victoria II seriously lack a fundamental element in politics, soft power. Again, I'm France and have Argentina in my Sphere, the current Argentine government doesn't want my capital in there, why can't I induce a new one to coop with me without spilling a drop of blood? That is good for both me and Argentina.
Multiple RGO per province
The entire world in Victoria is static in resource gathering, why not change? let's say I brought a estate around Krakow and started growing a wheat plantation, why can't my plantation be relevant? Why only coal gain money in Krakow? RGO could be similar to factories, but more limited, each province should be divided in "Agriculture" and "Extractivism" (placeholder names, don't get serious).
Agriculture can be changed and the POPs manages by cultivating wheat, potato, grapes, sugar, whatever they want and producing income to themselves, in Planned Economy and State Capitalism you can encourage/create estates for the POPs.
Of course each province would have attributes for certain types of resource (don't expect your potato farm in the Sahara to be more productive to Wool production).
"Extractivism" works with Minerals. Minerals can't be changed that easily, only if another one is discovered, and the production is more efficient (because it's more focused than in the farms).
Cabinet system
Pretty much self-explained, something like HoI.
More Government
In few word, government type means nothing, just how many reforms you government has passed or some thing pretty meh (Install Communist CB), also some espionage is really lacking, why can't I saboute my loyal subject that is getting too strong?
Another points is the elections, they simply pales before events, I spent the entire game as Prussia trying to get the Reactionaries (and then the Fascists) and got nothing because the "All pops get 50% socialists" events steamrolled all my decisions, making Elections chain pretty meaningless and annoying. Ideologies are flawed too, why my Prussia, where everyone is deeply patriotic and would die for the Eagle, vote in the Anti-Military liberals?
There are too many things I would cite and think about, but it's late night so I continue tomorrow (there's probably a lot os grammar mistakes, I'm sorry).
The Russian Revolution as a scripted event, with it's own special event chain and the like. Just a little thing I felt I should throw out there.
I would like to see some of the game's event series become a lot deeper. Give us more alternate history options, each with their own ups and downs!
For instance, with the ACW, if the player keeps militancy and consciousness sufficiently down until '65 or so, he should have the option of instituting a policy of gradual, compensated manumission. The game would take away 10-20% tax income for a few years and maybe a few points of prestige, but also get rid of the slavery debate without a war. Then the player could choose to make African-Americans an accepted culture in exchange for a bunch of Yankee and Dixie militancy, or support the American Colonization Society and give Liberia an enormous amount of pops and research points, in exchange for -6 Yankee and Dixie militancy or something. Lots of different options there.
I also think the gameplay of any New World country, but especially the USA, should involve immigration and its consequences far more than it currently does. Right now immigration is pretty much an uncontroversially good thing as the U.S., given how easily pops assimilate. In real life, however, the question was much trickier. People didn't just give up their old languages and national loyalties because of the Statue of Liberty or something. I think the player should have to make a conscious effort to assimilate immigrants (via education, national focii, etc.), and suffer consequences if he doesn't. For instance, if 20% of America's population is ethnically German and poorly-assimilated, and America pursues an offensive war against Germany, militancy among German-Americans should skyrocket. Honestly, I think America's late game in domestic affairs is boring without this as a factor.
A more complex early game Japanese experience would also be amazing. Japan has always been my favorite country in V2, because it's perfectly suited to go from weak unciv to hegemonic East Asian empire. It would be great if we could properly simulate the earliest years of Japan's "opening up" to the outside world and the internal conflicts that resulted from this. Certain V2 mods do it fairly well, but the Meiji Restoration is such an interesting time in history, I'm sure Paradox could make something truly mind-blowing if it tried. I want a gameplay narrative where I go from being scared to death of Britain and the USA to invading Singapore and L.A.!
Finally, there should be far more flexibility in the unification of Italy and Germany. I would honestly love a well-developed event chain where the player forms Grossdeutschland and the opposing powers react to this realistically. Imagine going to war with Russia, Britain, France, Spain, the Ottomans, Italy, and Benelux all at once in a cut down to size war!
For instance, with the ACW, if the player keeps militancy and consciousness sufficiently down until '65 or so, he should have the option of instituting a policy of gradual, compensated manumission. The game would take away 10-20% tax income for a few years and maybe a few points of prestige, but also get rid of the slavery debate without a war. Then the player could choose to make African-Americans an accepted culture in exchange for a bunch of Yankee and Dixie militancy, or support the American Colonization Society and give Liberia an enormous amount of pops and research points, in exchange for -6 Yankee and Dixie militancy or something. Lots of different options there.
I also think the gameplay of any New World country, but especially the USA, should involve immigration and its consequences far more than it currently does. Right now immigration is pretty much an uncontroversially good thing as the U.S., given how easily pops assimilate. In real life, however, the question was much trickier. People didn't just give up their old languages and national loyalties because of the Statue of Liberty or something. I think the player should have to make a conscious effort to assimilate immigrants (via education, national focii, etc.), and suffer consequences if he doesn't. For instance, if 20% of America's population is ethnically German and poorly-assimilated, and America pursues an offensive war against Germany, militancy among German-Americans should skyrocket. Honestly, I think America's late game in domestic affairs is boring without this as a factor.
A more complex early game Japanese experience would also be amazing. Japan has always been my favorite country in V2, because it's perfectly suited to go from weak unciv to hegemonic East Asian empire. It would be great if we could properly simulate the earliest years of Japan's "opening up" to the outside world and the internal conflicts that resulted from this. Certain V2 mods do it fairly well, but the Meiji Restoration is such an interesting time in history, I'm sure Paradox could make something truly mind-blowing if it tried. I want a gameplay narrative where I go from being scared to death of Britain and the USA to invading Singapore and L.A.!
Finally, there should be far more flexibility in the unification of Italy and Germany. I would honestly love a well-developed event chain where the player forms Grossdeutschland and the opposing powers react to this realistically. Imagine going to war with Russia, Britain, France, Spain, the Ottomans, Italy, and Benelux all at once in a cut down to size war!