@Lamartine I'm with you! And this could actually allow us to add a potential Napoleonic Wars. The problems as pointed out earlier still remain but perhaps this would allow for an opening?
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.
What exactly would the player do when they are the "ruler" of an anarchist nation? If all your factories are owned by pops does that mean you can only interact with your economy by trying to influence your pops? What would the ingame goal/benefit of enriching your workers in this way be other than role playing?
Or it could be an "game over " event? As in falling to very radical ideologies will leave to the state essentially going away, and scaring all the neighbors by its example.
changing the way rebels work
rebels aren't shown on the map, rather they disrupt daily life in the places rebel, you can hope they die out on their own, give in to their demands or send in the army
sending in the army is a serious risk, the least is that you get called "the prince of grapeshot"(prussia 1848) the other extreme is that you'll lose all your allies and your enemy get's a free CB (ottoman empre 1870)
fighting alongside rebels
if a nation declares itself to be in support of a rebel cause then those rebels will not fight that nation
if republic US wants to establish a democracy in germany then jacobin rebels shouldn't fight it, if soviet russia wants to establish communism in germany then communist rebels should'nt fight it
equally, if prussia declares on the austrians for hungarian freedom then hungarian natinalist shouldn't fight the prussians
rebels aren't shown on the map, rather they disrupt daily life in the places rebel, you can hope they die out on their own, give in to their demands or send in the army
sending in the army is a serious risk, the least is that you get called "the prince of grapeshot"(prussia 1848) the other extreme is that you'll lose all your allies and your enemy get's a free CB (ottoman empre 1870)
fighting alongside rebels
if a nation declares itself to be in support of a rebel cause then those rebels will not fight that nation
if republic US wants to establish a democracy in germany then jacobin rebels shouldn't fight it, if soviet russia wants to establish communism in germany then communist rebels should'nt fight it
equally, if prussia declares on the austrians for hungarian freedom then hungarian natinalist shouldn't fight the prussians
here's something that might anger some players but makes sense in history
- maximum engaged forces: in current V2 as soon as you're afghanistan or zulu and the british declare on you then you might as well give up
instead have it so that you can only send a certain number of troops to a conflict depending on the score difference between you and the opponent
this makes it so the british can only send 1 army against the zulus or afghanis while allowing it to send their full might against the german empire
also have the AI learn when to mobilise or not, mobilisation ought to only happen when the nation is in danger (also during large scale rebellions) not when it engages china on the other side of the globe
- maximum engaged forces: in current V2 as soon as you're afghanistan or zulu and the british declare on you then you might as well give up
instead have it so that you can only send a certain number of troops to a conflict depending on the score difference between you and the opponent
this makes it so the british can only send 1 army against the zulus or afghanis while allowing it to send their full might against the german empire
also have the AI learn when to mobilise or not, mobilisation ought to only happen when the nation is in danger (also during large scale rebellions) not when it engages china on the other side of the globe
Honestly, this makes sense in the context of battles and terrain, rather than overall wars, as you shouldn't be able to bring a 100,000 strong army into the afghan mountains and have them all engage at the same time. Would require the AI to know not to just suicide into well defended terrain and burn up their manpower. Limiting armies for war doesn't make sense, as the British did send a few armies to take on the Zulu after they turned out to be better than the British Generals gave them credit for. The Zulu would benefit from the Southern Africa states having more provinces to allow them to manoeuvre around armies better. Improved AI that doesn't mobilise every war would be welcome, especially as it can make navally invading nations like the USA impossible.
Might be useful for the AI, but for the player it seems a little arbitrary, especially when you have a system already in place to simulate the actual, historical reason why you wouldn't send a million men into the depths of Africa: supply.
With technological superiority and the lack of supply, any player knows very well that a small army is good enough to take care of the task, and that sending so many of your pops to die in a jungle is a terrible, terrible idea.
A better way to limit the amount of soldiers that can be sent to a colonial theater would be some kind of political support system for it. The war would have to be popular enough to actually allow more soldiers to be sent there. Perhaps you can send as many soldiers as you want to that place, but it would come at a severe political cost, like plummeting support for the ruling party and militancy if you don't have the needed support. Later in the game, it could also provide a boost to the, generally anti-military/pacifist, socialist parties, or any party who holds that position
It certainly would make being uncivs like Zulu or the Sikhs more viable that's for sure.
I'm mostly pushing for a third game because I want to be able to reliably multiplay the game with friends.
The game doesn't properly reflect the vast difference in supply needs between a primitive army and a modern one, and the constant increases in supply capability can in some cases allow you to supply more troops in some technologically inferior enemy's territory than they can supply of their own troops there. The infrastructure and terrain penalties clearly aren't enough, but since the AI seems to have no clue about the down sides of operating in bad terrain, making it harder and more restrictive would typically hit the AI's troops far more than the player's.
The main issue I see with limiting armies allowed in a war is how would you implement such a system? Would the game choose the soldiers you're allowed, which could leave you with troops in India being selected for your African campaigns? I'd see a being a better option being both giving uncivs some minor buffs (such as increased movement speed to out manurer troops, as men with spears are faster then troops lugging around cannons and gatling guns), and giving more infamy penalties if you just swamp a nation (possibly using soldier deaths to calculate infamy).
If infamy would be counted by the amount of people killed nobody would ever want to touch a minor concession in China since you kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people in maybe one battle. A system of political support would probably have to be based on a number of regiments you're allowed to bring into that war, with a "war zone" being a area of the map where you're not allowed to bring more than X amount of units otherwise you get the penalty. If the enemy were to gain ground, such an area would of course expand. The issue of Indian units for Britain, and colonial units in general, would probably be fixed by somehow tying colonial units to their colonies of origin, needing a certain amount of your own soldiers in comparison and only allowing colonial units out of their colony in limited numbers.
I'd argue then that you should get infamy for killing that many troops, as the first opium war in China resulted in only 18,000-20,000 Chinese troops being killed or wounded, as they the Chinese troops chose to mainly retreat rather than being massacred as the Victoria 2 AI tend to be. Wholesale slaughter of troops in one battle shouldn't really be seen outside of Great Wars. Infamy from killing so many troops would deter disproportional responses and possibly encourage more strategic thinking, although this may require other changes, such as increased warscore from naval battles vs unciv's or changes to how war exhaustion affects the willingness of a nation to accept a peace treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
The issue with this system I see is that a "war zone" could limit combat, funnelling combat into an arbitrary area, or get exploited, such as letting a weak enemy siege down a few provinces to justify bringing a giant army in. Also, I'd see this as even more of a reason to just stay on a reactionary or another jingoistic party to maximise the troops you can field, while flipping to communism or fascism when they pop up. People may also weigh up that if they just swarm even more troops they can negate any penalty they may suffer from having more troops.
On top of an infamy penalty from killing so many soldiers, perhaps changing the combat vs nations that don't have guns could help, possibly having more moral damage from these weapons to encore an army to retreat.
This would be useful for the early to mid game, but it would cause issues when the Great War comes along, as Indian troops under British command served on the Western Front as colonial troops, as did Canadian, Australian and New Zealand troops until they were granted command during WW1. Also I'm unsure how a system to keep them in the colony would work, as would Indian troops be blocked from attacking Afghanistan, as its outside of the British Colony but Indian Troops did fight in the various wars in Afghanistan? If it can work, it would be a good system to prevent nations like the UK just amassing giant armies from their colonies.
Using colonial troops - benefits are that they are numerous and are tolerant of their local (and similar) climates.
Penalties historically included their lower efficacy outside of their climate zone, along with higher CON and MIL at home with their usage abroad. Usage of Indian troops in the Opium War was an underlying contributor to the tensions that led to the Sepoy Mutiny. Usage of all colonial troops in WW1 got the people of those regions to think seriously about independence - and the WW2 experience got them to do more than think.
Looking at the comments about nationalist movements, this plays into that mechanic. Soldiers from a non-accepted culture translate into more nationalism for that culture.
This is why the colonial nations were adamant about European officers for colonial troops and why they wanted major combat actions to be associated with troops from the home country. Colonial troops were primarily utilized for support roles - the colonial masters did not want any glory to go to the colonial troops.
This will also mean the game comes with a big disclaimer - the game *will* simulate racism. I think that it has to do that in order to be honest about the time period. Giving benefits to a minority group tended to anger members of groups with privileges. IE, more rights for African-Americans led to more militancy among Dixie and Yankee pops, to put American racial tensions in perspective. Yankee pops did want to abolish slavery, but were also mostly dead-set against integration of African-Americans into larger American society.
Consider also: *women* should be considered as an oppressed, non-accepted minority. They won't rise up in rebellion, but they will do other things that will make giving them the right to vote preferable to keeping them disenfranchised.
I think prestige hits from "at least we're better than (x)" events associated with womens' suffrage and abolition - possibly other policies - should be a percentage of total prestige, not just a set number. I can see reforms acting as a basket where maybe women can't vote, but a strong labor movement or pension scheme can make up for that. An authoritarian nation in 1900 should be on very shaky ground. Prussia allowed social reforms instead of political reforms to let off steam while Russia failed to reform and endured two major uprisings that eventually resulted in the chaos that allowed Communism to take hold.
Of course, there are some great ideas on the other 153 pages of this thread... If Victoria 3 was built to be truly multi-threaded, it could handle *all* the data we want to be manipulated that would be able to faithfully reproduce the economic, political, and social movements of the period.
Penalties historically included their lower efficacy outside of their climate zone, along with higher CON and MIL at home with their usage abroad. Usage of Indian troops in the Opium War was an underlying contributor to the tensions that led to the Sepoy Mutiny. Usage of all colonial troops in WW1 got the people of those regions to think seriously about independence - and the WW2 experience got them to do more than think.
Looking at the comments about nationalist movements, this plays into that mechanic. Soldiers from a non-accepted culture translate into more nationalism for that culture.
This is why the colonial nations were adamant about European officers for colonial troops and why they wanted major combat actions to be associated with troops from the home country. Colonial troops were primarily utilized for support roles - the colonial masters did not want any glory to go to the colonial troops.
This will also mean the game comes with a big disclaimer - the game *will* simulate racism. I think that it has to do that in order to be honest about the time period. Giving benefits to a minority group tended to anger members of groups with privileges. IE, more rights for African-Americans led to more militancy among Dixie and Yankee pops, to put American racial tensions in perspective. Yankee pops did want to abolish slavery, but were also mostly dead-set against integration of African-Americans into larger American society.
Consider also: *women* should be considered as an oppressed, non-accepted minority. They won't rise up in rebellion, but they will do other things that will make giving them the right to vote preferable to keeping them disenfranchised.
I think prestige hits from "at least we're better than (x)" events associated with womens' suffrage and abolition - possibly other policies - should be a percentage of total prestige, not just a set number. I can see reforms acting as a basket where maybe women can't vote, but a strong labor movement or pension scheme can make up for that. An authoritarian nation in 1900 should be on very shaky ground. Prussia allowed social reforms instead of political reforms to let off steam while Russia failed to reform and endured two major uprisings that eventually resulted in the chaos that allowed Communism to take hold.
Of course, there are some great ideas on the other 153 pages of this thread... If Victoria 3 was built to be truly multi-threaded, it could handle *all* the data we want to be manipulated that would be able to faithfully reproduce the economic, political, and social movements of the period.
two things I would like to see relating to colonies.
1.) borrow from HOI4 and have different levels of colonial governments
2.) a clearer distinction between the metropole and the colonies.
1.) borrow from HOI4 and have different levels of colonial governments
2.) a clearer distinction between the metropole and the colonies.
A concept for rebels I've been thinking of would be to treat them closer to government entities for nationalist rebels, including using the peace conference mechanics to resolve issues and having different ideological groups within the nationalist rebels.
As an example, let's say we are in a 1919/22 scenario in the UK, with Irish Nationalist rebels rising up to simulate the Irish Independence War. To model the treaty negotiated, one method would be to open peace talks with the rebels using the peace conference mechanic, offering to release Ireland as a dominion. This would likely please the Liberal and Conservative pops within the rebels (overall, although with negative opinion modifiers due to desire for a free republic), Reactionary pops would object, wanting a full release, while pops in the Northern Irish group would object, as they wish to stay in the UK. Removing the state of Ulster from the released states would bring the Northern Irish pops on agreeing with the treaty, with negative opinion modifiers to the Irish pops but overall the Nationalist rebels willing to accept these terms, although the negative opinion modifiers for the Reactionary pops would be greater. The Irish States selected are released as the Irish Free States and the UK and Ireland get a small prestige bonus for resolving the matter peacefully. The disagreement of the Reactionary pops leads to military in the released Irish states, which could lead to reactionary rebels rising up against the Irish Government.
I know this isn't very accurate to what happened in Ireland but I see it as a better way then waiting for events or decisions to pop up, most of which most players wouldn't take as it isn't beneficial. The prestige gain I suggested could incentive more peaceful routes and negotiating could be engaged by the two concerned parties, rather than waiting for tension and a crisis.
As an example, let's say we are in a 1919/22 scenario in the UK, with Irish Nationalist rebels rising up to simulate the Irish Independence War. To model the treaty negotiated, one method would be to open peace talks with the rebels using the peace conference mechanic, offering to release Ireland as a dominion. This would likely please the Liberal and Conservative pops within the rebels (overall, although with negative opinion modifiers due to desire for a free republic), Reactionary pops would object, wanting a full release, while pops in the Northern Irish group would object, as they wish to stay in the UK. Removing the state of Ulster from the released states would bring the Northern Irish pops on agreeing with the treaty, with negative opinion modifiers to the Irish pops but overall the Nationalist rebels willing to accept these terms, although the negative opinion modifiers for the Reactionary pops would be greater. The Irish States selected are released as the Irish Free States and the UK and Ireland get a small prestige bonus for resolving the matter peacefully. The disagreement of the Reactionary pops leads to military in the released Irish states, which could lead to reactionary rebels rising up against the Irish Government.
I know this isn't very accurate to what happened in Ireland but I see it as a better way then waiting for events or decisions to pop up, most of which most players wouldn't take as it isn't beneficial. The prestige gain I suggested could incentive more peaceful routes and negotiating could be engaged by the two concerned parties, rather than waiting for tension and a crisis.
not trying to let you down but:
not crazy
not original
has been proposed a dozen times already
this is actually a really good idea, as I recall the zulu war was unpopular both in south-africa as in brittain, it's only after islandwana that the british parliament put it's weight behind it
because of the humiliation that a loss to the zulus would cause
in HOI4 there's a mechanic where you're limited to sending a couple of divisions to foreign conflicts as volunteers, mayhaps a similar mechanic could be used for wars in victoria 3 based on parliamentary opinion about the war
adding to your idea: war against a fellow GP gives a high initial boost to jingoism, as war exhaustion rises pacificsm begins to gain traction and recruitment slows, after a while you can lose because you simply don't have the available MP or political power to continue the war and have to make peace
Thats a good idea, although it would depend on how policy is handled in Victoria 3, as some of the policy stuff in Victoria 2 is frustrating, as there is very little reason to switch up your policies as some are just objectively worse. I actively push for liberal parties in game that don't have Laissez Faire, as it just isn't fun to play with, limiting what you can produce, and the AI in my games tended to crash my economy if I didn't wrest control back or they wouldn't build the unprofitable but necessary arms factories. I want stuff like Laissez Faire to remain in Victoria 3 but It's frustrating when I cannot get the stuff I need because Capitalists don't build factories for it or when they do they go bankrupt. Allowing for Governments to set contracts for these supplies and having companies acting as intractable entities could help this.
With Jingoism, having the national attitude or policy shift during a Great War or war with another GP (such as the Crimea War) would be interesting and may encourage new playstyles, such as, as you mentioned, knowing when to cut your losses and peace out.
I know the economics are not my strong part in this game but I wonder if part of the problem with capitalists building stupid factories could be solved by letting the profit factor of earlier factories go into account on what to build? Like if there's been already five glass factories that didn't make any profits, then capitalists are less likely to build new such, and five lumber factories that did make a good profit would be an inducement to build new such factories?