Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[deanwebb]

the problem with the current set-up of civil wars is that it's cheesable or plain handicaps ai players

for example as the US you can recruit nothing but yankee troops (or nothing but dixie troops if you're going CSA) and at the start you'll have an army while the other side has to recruit them from scratch
or your soldiers start divided amidst the (now) enemies troops and are inmediatly killed (this is why hungary often doesn't have an army in 1848)

Agree. Having the civil war faction raise its troops independently of what's in the main army is a first step.
A second consideration is the loyalty of the troops in the main army. It's not a guarantee that everyone checks their political view and/or culture and makes a determination on those factors, across the board. In the US Civil War, for example, there were slaveholders that stayed on the Union side - just as one of the CSA's generals was from Ohio, and an abolitionist coordinator of the Underground Railroad, at that!

Assuming that V3 allows for new code for new situations, I'd have troops that would be overwhelmed locally seek to desert rather than engage. Maybe set them for a retreat immediately after the combat is triggered. If the rebelling troops would overpower the loyalists, then the loyalists would make use of the retreat mechanic, rather than be annihilated on the spot.

This would be different from a mutiny, where those combats absolutely should happen.

If the units don't retreat, then maybe they teleport to friendly territory? Not very historical, I should say, but it allows for outcomes that have a historical feel, so perhaps that's how one justifies them.

 

[Avian Overlord]

A added wrinkle for the ACW is that the United States during this time did not have a large peacetime army. Both the Confederate and Union armies were basically built up from scratch. There's a little attention payed to the politics of militarization in V2 with the military stance of parties. But this only affects funding, and as with most of V2's party issues, really should be more a question of permanent-until-changed policy.

 

[Gurkhal]

A added wrinkle for the ACW is that the United States during this time did not have a large peacetime army. Both the Confederate and Union armies were basically built up from scratch. There's a little attention payed to role to the politics of militarization in V2 with the military stance of parties. But this only affects funding, and as with most of V2's party issues, really should be more a question of permanent-until-changed policy.

Maybe there could be some kind of choice for the player where the country has to pick on what model to use for the army; militia/volunteer, professional, conscript and so on. Naturally there can be added minor elements from other stuff, but this might be the general foundation for the nation's army?

 

[Luckierexpert]

Maybe there could be some kind of choice for the player where the country has to pick on what model to use for the army; militia/volunteer, professional, conscript and so on. Naturally there can be added minor elements from other stuff, but this might be the general foundation for the nation's army?

Expanded army doctrines and new models sounds good. Would a transition to combat closer to HOI's system during WW1 also fit into this concept?

 

[Gurkhal]

Expanded army doctrines and new models sounds good. Would a transition to combat closer to HOI's system during WW1 also fit into this concept?

Without being an expert in HOI I would say that, most likely, yes.

One problem I see with Victoria's combat system is that when armies just lines up and fires away, it takes away from the tactical skill and indirect tactics that can be used. As such I think that tactical manouvering, flanking, raiding and many other regiment-level actions should have importance and that can really mean that not the entire two armies will be engaged but it can mean that just sections of them will be engaged in a fight that gives the victor such a advantage in, for example position, that the enemy has to withdraw.

For example in a straight up fire-fight in the standard combat system, Boers or Confederates, or on a more sympathic note, the Native Americans, will always get horrible massacred because tactical competence is subordinate to strategic resources in a way that don't work according to reality where all three of these through good tactics to my knowledge could present a serious opposition to an opponent that totally dwarfed them in terms of strategic resources.

Now strategic resources most often decides the outcome of a war but the road there is most often paved by the tactical competence, in my opinion, of the two sides. Hence an army with high tactical skill should be able to hold on fairly well against a more resource rich opponent even if the resource rich opponent will be able to absorb setbacks and losses in a way that their strategically poorer opponent can not.

I understand that Victoria III should not be a 100% wargame, but either we accept that the war aspect of the game will always leave a sour taste or it must need to make it more complex.

 

[Luckierexpert]

Without being an expert in HOI I would say that, most likely, yes.

One problem I see with Victoria's combat system is that when armies just lines up and fires away, it takes away from the tactical skill and indirect tactics that can be used. As such I think that tactical manouvering, flanking, raiding and many other regiment-level actions should have importance and that can really mean that not the entire two armies will be engaged but it can mean that just sections of them will be engaged in a fight that gives the victor such a advantage in, for example position, that the enemy has to withdraw.

For example in a straight up fire-fight in the standard combat system, Boers or Confederates, or on a more sympathic note, the Native Americans, will always get horrible massacred because tactical competence is subordinate to strategic resources in a way that don't work according to reality where all three of these through good tactics to my knowledge could present a serious opposition to an opponent that totally dwarfed them in terms of strategic resources.

Now strategic resources most often decides the outcome of a war but the road there is most often paved by the tactical competence, in my opinion, of the two sides. Hence an army with high tactical skill should be able to hold on fairly well against a more resource rich opponent even if the resource rich opponent will be able to absorb setbacks and losses in a way that their strategically poorer opponent can not.

I understand that Victoria III should not be a 100% wargame, but either we accept that the war aspect of the game will always leave a sour taste or it must need to make it more complex.

I am no expert on HOI's combat either but I think that with the Victoria series the combat should get closer to HOI's as the dates near. CK2 and EU4 has similar combat systems but have differences based on their time period. HOI4 has a system that is very different to EU4's or Victoria 2's, with frontlines and units fighting between provinces rather then in a single province. I feel that for a theoretical Victoria 3, a slow transition towards a more HOI based combat system during the late game (1900's -1936) would be a good direction, as I feel that the Great War's that Victoria 2 has are way too fast in some regards, especially with a France Vs Germany game where both are powerful. The Eastern Front in WW1 was probably closer to the system we have for Victoria 2, as the wide open lands of Russia had both Russia and Germany manoeuvring army groups around each other rather than the static lines on the western front.

This could be achieved with upgradeable doctrines that slowly shift nations towards more HOI like combat that only occurs against nations with similarly upgraded doctrines (e.g. for a WW1 situation, the UK, France and Germany would have upgraded doctrines, so the Western Front would be more static and HOI styled. Russia would be behind technologically, not have the upgraded doctrine and would fight Germany with a system closer to Victoria 2's system, which Germany would also use when fighting a battle against Russia).

Also I agree with you about how strategic resources can win a war, so I was also thinking about buildable army supply depots to stockpile military goods (guns, artillery, etc), with possible bonuses to having them closer to a front (and easier to resupply units) but having penalties if they are captured. I want a Victoria game to not focus on war, as I feel that the trade, economy and diplomacy of the game should be the focus, but I also accept that War was frequent during this period, especially for the Great powers of the world, so combat improvements over Victoria 2 would be a great addition to a sequel.

 

[Kovax]

The American Civil War began to shift from open field battles with men standing in lines in the open, to trench warfare and field fortifications. WWI would be an extension of that, particularly on the Western Front. Victoria 3 really needs to reflect the fundamental changes in warfare which happened over the course of that century, starting out with the last vestiges of linear warfare and transitioning to trench warfare and infiltration tactics, potentially with the first signs of maneuver warfare and combined arms appearing at the very end.

As said, it's primarily an economic and diplomatic game, but SOME warfare is inevitable for most countries, and this major aspect of the game has been one of V2's weak points.

 

[deanwebb]

This is a great area of discussion, makes me want to see separate threads for improving Victoria's economic, political, population, and so forth engines.

The points above about military are excellent ones! We start V2 with muzzle-loaded muskets and end with Lightning Warfare on the horizon, after passing through the nightmare of trench warfare.

Through it all, standing armies for the most part were small, with technology allowing them to have massive force multipliers against armies without Maxim guns. Mobilization was something typically reserved for major state conflicts - the ACW, WW1, Taiping Rebellion.

Looking first at the militia armies of the day, I'd say that mobilization should produce more troops, faster. Policies around mobilization should be scalable. The USA, for example, had a 90-day policy after which volunteers could leave service. That had to be modified for longer-term conflicts... The ACW also saw the CSA engage in a sliding window of conscription eligibility, very much like that mechanic in HOI. Something similar to that in V3 would be welcome. Troops should still be drawn from provinces, but we should also be able to "level out" units with spare soldiers from other provinces as the game progresses and, with it, militarization.

Technology absolutely should change warfare. Once certain thresholds are reached and forces modernized, new methods of fighting will be required. Forces that have not yet modernized will be broken faster on the battlefield by the more modern forces. Think not just colonial conflicts but also Koeniggratz, where the breech-loading Prussians decisively defeated the muzzle-loading Austrians. In the ACW, breech-loading rifles gave the USA forces a slowly increasing technological edge on the CSA, as the breech-loaders were introduced to line units.

 

[Kovax]

In my current campaign, I was only able to mobilize around 10% of my available reserves in the first 90 days of the war, despite starting mobilization on the first day. It took slightly over a year before I was able to mobilize over 90% of the available reserves, although the war was already decided long before that, and just waiting for the final sieges to finish. MOST of the reserve units formed during the 250-350 day timeframe. I really believe that the industrialized nations back then could mobilize at least a third of their available manpower within 90 days, not 150-200.

 

[fr-rein]

In my current campaign, I was only able to mobilize around 10% of my available reserves in the first 90 days of the war, despite starting mobilization on the first day. It took slightly over a year before I was able to mobilize over 90% of the available reserves, although the war was already decided long before that, and just waiting for the final sieges to finish. MOST of the reserve units formed during the 250-350 day timeframe. I really believe that the industrialized nations back then could mobilize at least a third of their available manpower within 90 days, not 150-200.

That's... not too wrong.
The thing is, game doesn't truly reflect the nature of conscription as you always have a big number of already mobilized corps, which in worst case is good for serving other troops and guarding least important objects. That's one of key thing, along with "regular" army, that allowed to spearhead offenses before main masses of troops could be mobilized.

 

[Kovax]

Normally, a country will have a stockpile of weapons, uniforms, and other equipment for a moderate number of additional reserve troops to be called up on short notice, in addition to whatever the standing army has at its disposal. After that, anything more needs to be manufactured, and will take time. In V2, that first call-up will usually take 3-6 months before you see more than a couple of stray brigades. After 9 months or so, the flood of reserves begins.

I would expect that to work in reverse, where you'd get a moderately large call-up using pre-built arms, available in around 30-60 days. After that, the remainder would stretch out, delayed by the need for equipment that hasn't been manufactured yet, or deferred due to occupational necessities which must be resolved before they're available to serve.

 

[fr-rein]

Well, to begin with, stockpile management in Vicky 2 was quite bad. It is one of those overlooked issues which make effective game quite tedious.

 

[deanwebb]

This is where military stockpiles and locations of arsenals become important... and if rebels take control of those, woe betide that nation!

 

[Kovax]

This is where military stockpiles and locations of arsenals become important... and if rebels take control of those, woe betide that nation!

That, in effect, was the key to most of the CSA's early victories in the ACW. They managed to get a lot of equipment transferred to arsenals in the South during the year or so before the South seceded from the Union, so when war broke out, they had stockpiles of weaponry (including a LOT of the country's artillery) ready to grab and put to use as soon as they could recruit the manpower. The North had to manufacture some just to even the score. The eventual deciding factor, however, was that the North could continue to manufacture equipment, while the South had only limited industrial capacity and had to import most of what it needed, which got to be close to impossible once the Union started blockading the major ports.

Arsenals, stockpiles, and the need to either manufacture or import what you need to fight the war are major factors by that point in history, and SHOULD be represented in the game.

 

[deanwebb]

And it looks like we need a lot more for that than simply modding up some events and decisions... hence the need for V3, should any Paradox developers still be reading this thread...

 

[Kovax]

As I see it, we should be able to build "empty" reserve divisions, tied to the provinces where they're from until they're mobilized, where the materials are already manufactured and a handful of officers and specialists are already assigned. In the event of war, those reserve divisions would fill out mostly with previously trained manpower and be ready for use on a fairly short notice. Other militia divisions would then be raised at a much slower pace after that, since their equipment would need to be manufactured before they could be deployed, and their previous training may have been fairly minimal, requiring additional time to bring up to the level of the first wave of reservists.

 

[Luckierexpert]

As I see it, we should be able to build "empty" reserve divisions, tied to the provinces where they're from until they're mobilized, where the materials are already manufactured and a handful of officers and specialists are already assigned. In the event of war, those reserve divisions would fill out mostly with previously trained manpower and be ready for use on a fairly short notice. Other militia divisions would then be raised at a much slower pace after that, since their equipment would need to be manufactured before they could be deployed, and their previous training may have been fairly minimal, requiring additional time to bring up to the level of the first wave of reservists.

This sounds like a good idea, with it adding depth without being obtuse. I avoid using the mobilisation mechanic if I can, as they just get stomped by an opposing organised army, which is likely to be what I'm facing if I need to mobilise. Also I often need units other than just soldiers, so building units that can be called up when needed allow for more planning before a war. Also, this could allow the Confederates to get an army quickly during the American Civil War though this mechanic, even if it would likely need some changes to fit with what historically happened.

 

[Gurkhal]

When we are now discussing war and warfare in a potential Victoria III I would add that perhaps the amount of officers needed will increase as army organization becomes more complex. Hence in the start you can probably go roughly well with very few officers but by the end you'll need a ton to keep the top level of organization and such going.

And also there should be a function for the general staff. I know that Germany's was the most well know for meddling in politics but I've understood that also other countries with a permanent General Staff, that staff gained political influence due to the importance of the military. The idea would be that it would give great benefits when doing war, especially with large forces, but in exchange it would meddle with both some aspects of domestic and also in foreign politics. With the worst result being, if eveything really goes to hell, that it makes a military coup against the government.

 

[Husein]

The tedious and unclear sections of Vicky need to be cleared up. Sphere of interest should have automated option. This is the country I want influence in, this is how important it is, discredit ban and expel foreign ambassadors as needed just keep me in control. Done. Constantly checking the screen to see how many points the other country has in Colombia or Egypt as you near the canal building is just frustrating. Fighting over German minors is worth pulling out the hair on your head.

Then the pops being constantly independent and going into red. Soldiers should be pooled as a manpower. You can theoretically have hundreds of thousands of soldiers you can’t use because they’re under a thousand pop total in province. The pop changes and growth mean that you can build 50 brigades and then it grows to 70 but some of the brigades are red because that specific pop fell down in numbers forcing you to replace it. If there are enough Yankee pops let me get some Yankee brigades and keep them topped up.

The combat should change in later periods transitioning from EU4 type to more of a HOI4 style combat.

There is not enough difference between ideologies. The only real economic difference is state capitalism and others. All others do the same thing which is rely on capitalists to build. Let use plant ghost factories in interventionism; ie I want a steel plant in Kazan I place a proposal for it as interventionist and then capitalists can fund it rather than building a random plant in an unsuitable place.

Make immigration and emigration better. A liberal France with great social benefits can’t compete with American dictators in terms of immigrants. South Africa gets next to none despite potentially being highly dependent on them. Immigration should be more proactive. Some countries should be able to offer free land for settling etc if they have low pop density. Make it more dependent on open jobs in RGOs and factories rather than are you in America or not.

Make assimilation dependent on cultural differences or closeness. Assimilating a Provençal into a Frenchman should be far far easier than assimilating a Kongolese into a Belgian. Assimilating a Norwegian as a Swedenis far easier than assimilating Swedes as a Russian. Etc.


Make it possible to invest into mobilized units or to mothball some armies as reserves. So that we can get certain amount of cavalry and artilery during mobilization.

Clear up and explain the trade screen.

 

[Luckierexpert]

The tedious and unclear sections of Vicky need to be cleared up.

Definitely, this should be one of the baselines for a possible sequel.

Sphere of interest should have automated option. This is the country I want influence in, this is how important it is, discredit ban and expel foreign ambassadors as needed just keep me in control. Done. Constantly checking the screen to see how many points the other country has in Colombia or Egypt as you near the canal building is just frustrating. Fighting over German minors is worth pulling out the hair on your head.

I would argue that having it be too automated would be a bad thing, as it would be overly mindless to perform and could lead to stuff slipping though the cracks. Shifting the sphering controls to the diplomacy menus and organising them into groups, similar to how EU4 handles diplomacy, I feel would help. The sphering list in Victoria 2 is just horrible to navigate.

Then the pops being constantly independent and going into red. Soldiers should be pooled as a manpower. You can theoretically have hundreds of thousands of soldiers you can’t use because they’re under a thousand pop total in province. The pop changes and growth mean that you can build 50 brigades and then it grows to 70 but some of the brigades are red because that specific pop fell down in numbers forcing you to replace it. If there are enough Yankee pops let me get some Yankee brigades and keep them topped up.

This is a great idea, I don't know when having soldiers of different pops actually affected my army and pooling it as manpower, like every other Paradox game, makes forming an army much more simple. I would argue, for some balance, of making the manpower be just from your core population's soldiers, with options to produce troops from other culture's pops requiring you to form colonies or dominions, which would encore the emergence of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and The Raj for the UK in most games, and having you control their armies unless you grant them the option to command their own, as many of the dominions of the UK were granted during WW1.

There is not enough difference between ideologies. The only real economic difference is state capitalism and others. All others do the same thing which is rely on capitalists to build. Let use plant ghost factories in interventionism; ie I want a steel plant in Kazan I place a proposal for it as interventionist and then capitalists can fund it rather than building a random plant in an unsuitable place.

The support of different reforms and government types is one of the bigger differences in Ideologies, with Liberals socialists and Communists supporting social reforms and Conservative, Reactionary and Fascist opposing them as being one example. Expanding internal politics would certainly help give more distinction between the different ideologies, as aside from the Communists and Fascists which change governments, the others are mechanically the same outside the Economic policies you mentioned.

One idea I see working to help assist with this would be giving players the option to build a party to suit their needs and working to convince their pops to elect them (in a democratic system). There should be some restrictions (to stop you building a Jingoistic, Planned Economy Liberal party, to get everything you want) but I'm not sure what restrictions would be fair. Just seems a better system then the current election events, which often leads to 4-5 different parties for each Ideology.

Clear up and explain the trade screen.

I think one of the devs mentioned they wanted to destroy the world market, so I don't see it returning in a future game in the way Victoria 2 has it.


I agree with your other points. They're well though out and I can't think of anything I could add to them that I haven't already said.